Follow Us :

The Government has informed the Parliament that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) in terms of Section 17(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 constituted a fact finding Committee called High Powered Committee to look into the entire gamut of financial reporting, accounting, auditing aspects with regard to Satyam fiasco and suggest changes wherever required for the purpose of making appropriate recommendations to Government, SEBI and other regulators. Giving this information in reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, the Minsiter for Corporate Affairs, Shri Salman Khurshid told the House that the fact finding process is on.

Shri Khurshid also informed that ICAI has sought following details from around 150 firms of Chartered Accountants registered with it on the following:

i. Agreement/contract with the multinational entity.

ii. Terms and conditions for usage of name of multinational entity.

iii. Arrangement for sharing of fees/profit with other Indian CA firms with similar/identical name and with the multinational entity.

iv. Arrangement for sharing of human resources and infrastructure with other Indian CA firms with similar/identical name and with the multinational entity.

v. Details of remittances made to and received from the multinational entity.

vi. Copy of Partnership deed of the CA firms registered with ICAI with similar/identical name, as in vogue in the last five years.

vii. Income-tax assessment orders for the last 3 years in respect of the CA firms registered with ICAI with similar/identical name. If assessment orders have not been received, then to submit computation of income and copies of returns.

viii. Copies of letterheads and visiting cards generally used.

At present, the aforementioned details are not available on the database of the ICAI, since these have not been called for in the past. These details have now been called for as the Committee has felt that the same would enable it to reach an appropriate conclusion.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.


  1. K C Talukdar says:

    Whether Income from House property more then one House property is applicable for SARAL-II (ITR1)A.Y 2010-2011 ??


  2. A.Banerjee says:

    The latest comments of ND, Mr. S.Narayanaswamy and CS Sanjib Sahu in this series of discussions are very important. The points made by Mr. Narayanaswamy will have no effect on the contrllers of ICAI since they are very, very successful in life-and noyjing like succeeds than success. Hence the valid points made by ND and CS Sahu (his 2nd) will go totally unnoticed by the authorities named in the seven comments so far. In fact, it is very suggestive that, so far, one does not recall having seen any comments/reaction of/from these authorities on any of the issues/questions raised by any of the participants in any of the discussions on any of the topics uploaded on this site.

    So much for “participative democracy, transparent governance, rule of law, sensitive bureaucracy, and responsible political leaders’ !

  3. CS.SANJIB SAHU. says:

    Views expressed above are to be seriously looked into by the Govt.who in turn should think up for an early re-egineering these policy making bodies namely ICAI,ICWAI,ICSI or else the very purpose of setting these institutions through special acts of Parliament shall be gone futile, as has been sounded above.

  4. s.narayanaswamy says:

    i am of the opinion that at this tech era , many things could have been done by the icai and others , if they really want to implement the so called monitortin. they were only mainly concentrating on the education part, income increasing part of the stake holders. they do not have neither time nor focus, for the strict monitoring, till the bad thing happened. every body new that lot and lot of persons are doing much more to augment their finance, just to get a good recognition in the profession and also inthe society coupled withthe need of full fil ment of the family and other ego needs as well. to my knowledge, none of the professionals , never, ever , were able to be 100% stricit and then retain the income and client as such. so many compromises has been made to do because of the icai functioning and the system of alloting the audit and fees there on. any poor , who , could not compromise, was just like that thrown out , any manny are either dummy or name sake practice, or doing some thing else , to meet their livilihood,. so this kind of one time , approach , will not do any thing material for any stake holders. the system should change for the appointment and payment of fees and retaining the auditor and his fees , as well, since, he also , unfortunately, have childeren, spouce, aged dependents etc, along with his poor earings , he has to manage till he vanish from the earth. even some of their spouces, children, in laws , and others , used to call a strict person , as an UNSUCCESSFUL practioner. so , where is the social security for him, this things, needs to be addressed , at large, other wise, it is only and only, a temporary , medicine, which will neither cure the problem of the practioner, or his clients. at the end of the day, every body is a looser, and blaming every body. some thing should be done seriously , with the required professional and political will. other wise, this is only a time pass debate . nothing will work in the best part of the future.

  5. T.Dev Sharma says:

    Dr. Paras Jain (?) is absolutely correct. ICAI and the like are the “authorised” vendors of liceses and, after all, the only purpose of all members of these statutorily constituted bodies is indeed to make money. And nothing else. And he is also correct and more so in pointing out that a pot cannot call a pan black.
    It is at least high time for some honest members of the ICAI to request and urge their beloved ICAI to enquire into the past record (as regards falsifying accounts/helping in these exercises, representing bogus cases of “falsely true” disclosures of true and full income before certain authorities and, further, into the mystery of their meteoric rise from nameless nobodies in the CA profession to the top of the apex body (apart from being nominated to head prestigious government bodies/taken over companies, members of Bank boards, etc.) in a short span of 15020 years.

    In the interest of the security of this country and to protect its sovereignty, offices like the SPIO, CBI, IB, RAW, DRI, etc., all should make all efforts to gather their names and start investigation immediately, irrespective of the said enemies of the country’s influential political and bureaucratic support-base.

    Time is precious and the essence of the serious matter. And, before further disclosures in the press/media, the above authorities must strike.

  6. drparasjain says:

    CS Sahu and Sharma both don’t realise that at best or worst the three instts ICAI, ICWAI, ICSI ARE ONLY LICENSING authorities. How many of us heed to the ICAI’s call. Isn’t it a fact that we are engaged in augmenting income , pleasing clients and retaining clients . Peer review, Guidance Notes etc CPE are some of the efforts undertaken by the Instt. And your institutes , busy with creating jobs for you with or with out 383A are likely to put any discipline in your memabers > Then why a pot be allowed to call a pan black ?

  7. ABAN D. SHARMA says:

    I most respectfully concur with the very apt, valid and pointed response from CS Sanjib Sahu. It would be very appropriate here the comments posted in this very site earlier when this very news item appeared as a release from the ICAI under the caption “ICAI sought info from 150 CA firms and multi-national corporations” [Apr 30, 2010 ICAI] as under:
    “vivek krishna sharma ( April 30th, 2010 at 2:08 pm )-
    “The partners of these Indian firms carry two kind of visiting cards one showing them partner in Indian Firm and another showing them partner in multinational entity .While the fresh chartered accountants are called for interview in the name of multinational entity they are issued employment letters showing them employees in the Indian firm .All this is happening right under the nose of regulatory bodies for such long time and these regulatory bodies are busy collecting information from wrong doers to decide whether they have circumvented the law or not.
    “NADEY Says (April 30th, 2010 at 2:30 pm)-
    “One sincerely hopes that the ICAI means business and has the professional honesty of not sparing its own past-presidents, etc., if found guilty of complicity in these matters. In fact, one of its past presidents, immediately after remitting his office, joined a firm of one of the big-4:will the ICAI take his case also up?
    And what about those who took no action at all in these areas during their tenure? And not very long ago too?
    “CA.SUBHASHCHANDRAPODDER ( April 30th, 2010 at 6:04 pm )-
    It appears that the Hon’ble Minister has also been led to go by the press release by the ICAI itself.
    If the High Powered Committee (HPC) is to “look into the entire gamut of financial reporting, accounting, auditing aspects with regard to Satyam fiasco and suggest changes wherever required for the purpose of making appropriate recommendations to Government, SEBI and other regulators”, then what indeed is the HPC supposed to do and why should the tax-payers’ government swear by its findings? And, this apart, as rightly pointed out by CS Sanjib Sahu, why should there be multiple agencies of the government as well as the ICAI all seek to unearth the same facts and reach similar findings and at whose/what cost?
    In addition, it is not merely the issue of Satyam (or Asatyam, as one might like to say), will the government/ICAI take into consideration the points raised in the above quoted earlier comments of Mr. Sahu himself, Vivek Krishna Sharma, CA Harishchandra Podder and, in particular, of Mr. Nadey ? What is the locus standii of the ICAI in these matters of the State and to what extent and have they taken it granted that the other statutory authorities as mentioned by Mr. Sahu, as well as the CBDT, etc., will be bound by the notices (?)/findings of the ICAI?

    And what about the complicity/involvement of the CAs in various other raging frauds of the day, viz., IPL, etc.

  8. CS SANJIB SAHU. says:

    It is just ridiculous on the part of Govt. to inform the Parliament about the constitution of high power committee by ICAI to get into SATYAM fiasco.Than it is on who’s finding Govt. shall take action? Whether on the basis of the findings of CBI,SFIO and other govt agencies engaged for the purpose or on the report of ICAI? It is needless to mention here that role of ICAI is to regulate accounting education and training in India only.It obvious to all that,indian law makers makes law through the technique of copy /pasting of US,UK laws by terming them as internationaly best adopted practices!So when SATYAM like episode happens,a number of committees get incorporated to shift one’s responsibility to others!In the instant case supposed to come up with a warning note to ICAI for being responsible to regulate the auditor,but the same has not happened.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
May 2024