Announcement 1 : Manner of Reporting on Section 227(3)(bb) of the Companies Act, 1956. Announcement 2 : Reference to the Accounting Standards Applicable to the Companies in the Auditor’s Report and Limited Review Reports and various Engagement Standards. Announcement 3 : Amendment to the “Auditor’s Responsibility” Paragraph Included in the Independent Auditor’s Report. Announcement 4 […]
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of TDR, income by way of stallage and construction activity. During the assessment proceedings AO found that assessee had received advanced booking amount on account of the construction activity
I. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, at its 329th Adjourned meeting, held on 03rd and 04th January, 2014 at New Delhi noted that the illustrative formats of the independent auditor’s report (in respect of a Company) as given in SA 700, SA 705 and SA 706 contain the references to “Profit and Loss Account” at various places. The term was being used since the Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 also used this term.
The Council of the Institute, at its 329th (Adjourned) meeting held on 03rd and 04th January 2014 at New Delhi noted that reporting by the statutory auditors of the Company on clause (3)(bb) of section 227 of the Companies Act, 1956 is a legal requirement in cases where the company had appointed separate branch auditor/s.
The Council, accordingly, decided to amend paragraph 80 of the Statement on CARO, 2003 as follows: 80. There may be situations where one or more of the clauses are not applicable. For example, the requirement regarding internal audit system does not apply in case of all the companies.
The undersigned is directed to say that the issue of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants has been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal And On vs State Of Uttarakh and And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 ‘SCC 417, decided on 17th August, 2012. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under:
The impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 issued by Respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order dated 27 December 2013 is contrary to the provisions
On perusal of the submitted details, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on motor vehicles amounting of Rs.2,93,169/- in the year under consideration, but during the course of assessment proceeding the assessee has produced bills and proof of purchase