Follow Us :

ICAI expresses its concern on the proposed definition of “Accountant” in DTC, 2013 – (17-04-2014)

As the members are aware, the Direct Taxes Code, 2013 has proposed to widen the scope of the definition “Accountant” to include other professionals as well. It is a fact that various provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 under which chartered accountants have been given the responsibilities to undertake audit and certification of accounts of various entities have the emphasis on “audit” of the relevant accounts which is the exclusive domain of Chartered Accountants.

The Council of ICAI is aware that the proposed change is a cause of major concern to the entire profession. In this regard, ICAI has through a representation to Ministry of Finance, placed on record its concern not only for the profession, but for the country as a whole since issuance of audit certificates by persons having limited knowledge of audit of accounts will not only be professionally incorrect and but will raise many concerns including causing huge revenue leakages.

A meeting in this regard was held with Mr. Rajiv Takru, Revenue Secretary and Mr. R.K.Tewari, Chairman, CBDT on 16.4.2014, wherein CA. K. Raghu, President, ICAI and CA. Manoj Fadnis, Vice President, ICAI emphasized on the fact that there is a very significant difference in the area of expertise of other professionals vis-a-vis Chartered Accountants.

Members be assured that the Council of ICAI is equally concerned and will not leave any stone unturned to save the profession and the nation.

Secretary, Direct Taxes Committee

Also Read –

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

0 Comments

  1. B.S.K.RAO says:

    AUDIT IN COMPANIES ACT IS A COST, FINANCIAL & MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS AUDIT. HERE ONLY CMAS BE ALLOWED TO FURNISH THE SAME (ANNUAL REPORT PRESUMED TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE BY MEMBERS OF PUBLIC INDICATES THE SAME). REASON BEING CAS ARE AUTHORISED TO WORK IN THE AREA OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS ONLY. WHEREAS IN INCOME-TAX ACT, IT IS A TAX LAW AUDIT. THEREFORE ALL PERSONS AUTHORISED TO PREPARE RETURN UNDER RULE 12A READ WITH SECTION 288(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, BE ALLOWED TO FURNISH TAX LAW AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB. HERE MORE STRESS GIVEN TO INTERPRETATION OF LAW. THEREFORE, DECISION OF LEARNED OFFICIALS IN FINANCE MINISTRY TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF ACCOUNTANT IN DTC TO INCLUDE RELATED PROFESSIONAL IS APPROPRIATE. I MIGHT HAVE USED THE WORD MOST APPROPRIATE, IF TAX ADVOCATES AND INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONERS WERE ALSO INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF ACCOUNTANT IN DTC-2013. AS CBDT COULD NOT GET SECTION WISE WRONG CLAIMS IN TAX AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED BY CAS SINCE 1984 TO CONCLUDE QUALITY ASSESSMENT, WHY 2ND OPINION ABOUT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF ACCOUNTANT IN INCOME-TAX ACT/DIRECT TAXES CODE.

  2. B.S.K.RAO says:

    As per PTI News Dt.01.11.2013 Madras High Court observed that records revealed certain disturbing features in the functioning of ICAI(Financials). As RTI is in force, mischievous, illegal & selfish action of ICAI (Financials) will not work.

  3. B.S.K.RAO says:

    World over functions of Accounting are classified depending on the area of operation, application & usage. They are as under..

    (1) Cost Accounts=> Manufacturing/Processing Activity..
    (2) Financial Accounts = > Trading Activity..
    (3) Management Accounts => Management Level/Decision Making..

    Note:-Management Accounts is nothing but application of Ratio Analysis and Cash Flow Statement on Cost and Financial Accounts.

    By The Cost and Works Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2011, name has been changed to “The Institute of Cost Accountants of India” and the members got the power to work in the area of Management Accounts also and can re-designate themselves as ACMA/FCMA. Now, it is funny that both institutes passed by an Act of Parliament called by similar short name of “ICAI”. Of course syllabus is almost similar in all the three institutes called by different name of ICSI, ICWAI and ICAI.

    In view of the above amendment, Cost Accountants now possess wide power of working in the area of Cost Accounts, Financial Accounts & Management Accounts. And hence, Institute of Cost Accountants of India should be called full accounting body in India. Whereas, Chartered Accountants are restricted to work in the area of Financial Accounts only. This being the case, I do not understand why only Chartered Accountants are authorized to conduct Tax Audit U/s 44AB of Income-Tax Act and enjoy monopoly of authority, causing strict hurdle for voluntary compliance.

  4. B.S.K.RAO says:

    TO,

    MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
    GOVT. OF INDIA,
    NORTH BLOCK,
    NEW DELHI-110001

    IF DEPTT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA DO NOT ACCEDE TO THE ABOVE WISHES. ICAI (FINANCIALS) NOT ONLY ACT WILD/CRUEL, THEY DO NOT ALLOW DTC-2013 TO COME OUT SMOOTHLY. THEREFORE, IT IS BETTER TO ACCEDE TO THE WISHES OF ICAI (FINANCIALS) AND INTRODUCE TAX PRACTITIONERS BILL PREVAILING IN OTHER COUNTRY’S THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO WIDEN GENUINE TAX BASE OF ASSESSES IN INDIA

  5. SUDIPTA MAJUMDAR says:

    The expansion of definition of Accountant under DTC is welcome change. Much too long, it has been the monopoly of one profession and this monopoly resulted in malpractices leading to huge revenue leakages for the government. Therefore, it is welcome that this monopoly is broken and healthy competition is ushered in. As for competence of other professionals, I understand the other premier institutes have more or less similar expertise. CA’s need not fear encroachment into their domain. It is only the tax practice which is opened up and not the financial audit.Let the country gain by better, effective tax compliance. Let the fittest survive !!!!!

  6. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    I SUGGEST MY TAX ADVOCATE FRIENDS TO SERVE LEGAL NOTICE ON ICAI (FINANCIALS) ALLEGING ALL THE ISSUES PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG & TAKE ACTION UNDER PIL. I HOPE THAT MY TAX ADVOCATE FRIENDS WILL CONSIDER MY REQUEST

  7. B.S.K.RAO says:

    OBJECTIVES OF TAX AUDIT EXPLAINED IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO.387 DT.06.07.1984 1985 152 ITR. AS PER THIS CIRCULAR TAX AUDITOR SHOULD REPORT SECTION WISE WRONG CLAIMS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO CONCLUDE QUALITY ASSESSMENT & THE SAME IS ALSO ELABORATED IN E-FILING PROJECT AGREEMENT BEARING F.No.E-Filing/1/2009(DIT)(S)-III Dt.25.11.2011. THEREFORE TAX AUDIT IS THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF TAX ADVOCATES ONLY.

  8. arun says:

    i think we all should stop discussing about the topic,
    why are we insulting CA profession and other professions too,
    just wait and let the time take its time,
    the best decision will come out,,

  9. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    I hope ICAI will come forward with clean intention for widen genuine tax base of country. For this purpose ICAI must co-operate to pass DTC BILL 2013 without any alternation in definition of ” Accountant”. ICAI will must insist upon tax practitioner bill for ( Represent case before IT authorities & issue certificates under income tax act as per section 288(2).
    which will be suitable to increase genuine tax base & better services to assessees without botheration of travelling to audit accounts & reduce financial expenses for assessee.
    I think a professional who deals with VAT matters of assessee on mothly or quarterly bases can produce best quality audit to accounts. Main reason for this purpose bill wise detail filed in VAT RETURNS.

  10. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    AS LONG AS CBDT/MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA IS SILENT & NOT TAKING ACTION ON CAS U/S 277A OF INCOME-TAX ACT IN SCRUTINY OF 44AB CASES WHEREIN ADDITIONS ARE NOT DISPUTED/SUSTAINED IN APPEAL, ICAI (FINANCIALS) WILL INTERFERE IN ALL POLICY MATTERS & DICTATE CBDT/MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA

  11. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS,

    The Council of ICAI is aware that the proposed change is a cause of major concern to the entire profession. In this regard, ICAI has through a representation to Ministry of Finance, placed on record its concern not only for the profession, but for the country as a whole since issuance of audit certificates by persons having limited knowledge of audit of accounts will not only be professionally incorrect and but will raise many concerns including causing huge revenue leakages.

    Members be assured that the Council of ICAI is equally concerned and will not leave any stone unturned to save the profession and the nation.

    ON CAREFUL STUDY OF ABOVE TWO PARA’S OF ICAI,IT CLEARLY INDICATES THE WORD
    USED “NATION” IN LAST PARA IS NOT THE INTENTION OF ICAI, ICAI IS ONLY WORRIED ABOUT ITS MEMBERS & IT DOES NOT HAVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

  12. B.S.K.RAO says:

    BACK GROUND TO THE INTRODUCTION OF GST, OUR ESTMEED GOVT. OF KARNATKA HAS TAKEN INITIATIVE TO UPLOAD ALL THE PARTICULARS OF PURCHASES & SALES BY THE DEALERS REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.CCW/CR44/2013-14 Dt.29.04.2014. THIS WILL GENERATE SELF EMPLOYMENT & PREVENT LEAKAGE OF REVENUE. IN THIS SITUATION IF CERTIFICATION WORK IN INDIAN TAXATION LAWS ARE ONLY CONFINED TO 65,570 PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SPREAD THROUGHOUT INDIA, GOVT. WILL NOT GET VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE IN PROPOSED GST.

  13. Taxxguru says:

    Mr. Nimesh Maheshwariji,

    1) First of all you must apologize for each & every ARROGANT comment made by you in ALL THESE Discussion with out any legitimate base.

    2) If you are so much excited to do Legal Practice in India apart from as an Accountant, you must qualify for Degree of Law (LL.B.)& AIBE (All India Bar Examination. Get Certificate of Practice from Bar Council of India & become Member of Regional Bar Council under Bar Council of India (a set up by an Act of the Parliament) & there after practice Law in India. Do not practice Law in India as a Non-Lawyer/Non-Advocate.

    As mentioned by BSK Rao sir in his post dated 18/04/14 “Indian Legislature provided special class of persons called Advocates in Advocates Act to practice Law. Hence, apperance clause not yet all required in any Indian Tax Law Statute. In the case of Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Bajaji apex court clearly held that Advocates alone are entitled to practice the Profession of Law both in Litigious and Non-Litigious matters, nullifying the effect of Section 33 of Advocates Act. This also confirms to Section 29 of Advocates Act. Therfore, appearance clause in all Indian Tax Law statute require deletion.”

    Accounting Institute must follow the order of Apex Court (Bar Council of India Vs A.K.Bajaji) in true sense & be confine to practice of Accountancy only… Please do not encroach practice area of Legal Professionals any more… Its now enough any type of encroachment by non-Legal Practitioners.

  14. B S K RAO says:

    MINISTRY OF FINANCE SHOULD ONCE AGAIN STUDY THE WHOLE REPORT OF WANCHOO COMMITTEE AT THIS JUNCTURE ABOUT INTRODUCTION OF TAX AUDIT IN INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH DISSENTING NOTE OF SRI.P.C.PADHI BEFORE CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REQUEST OF ICAI.

  15. VENKATESH says:

    B.S.K.Rao gave following particulars of revenue collection in tax audit cases for Asst. Year 2013-14, relates to return filed in ITR-4, 5 & 6 in tax audit cases:-

    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-4 Rs 20,175 Crores
    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-5 Rs 18,358 Crores
    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-6 Rs 2,33,604 Crores

    Margin derived by farmers is not taxed in Income-Tax Act, but margin derived by next sellers of such Ag. output is taxed in their hands in Income-Tax Act. Presuming the output of Corporate assessees reach the ultimate consumer in three stages & considering the revenue of Rs 2,33,604/- Crores in corporate case and 50% of such Corporates do business with non-corporates covered by tax audit, who are in between the corporates & retailers. I am of the strong view that combined Income-Tax admission in return filed in ITR-4 & 5 covered by tax audit U/s 44AB for the Asst. Year 2013-14 should have crossed at least Rs. 15,00,000/-Crores. Deptt. of Revenue should answer this question to entertain the request ICAI (Financials) in the above article on the ground of leakage of revenue

  16. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS,

    One more thing,

    If non-corporate assessees who are the re-sellers of agricultural produces of India covered by tax audit U/s 44AB are considered, combined revenue from return filed in ITR- 4 & 5 should have crossed at least Rs 1,00,000/- x 3 times = Rs 3,00,000/- Lakhs Crores. This clearly indicates that required man power to support voluntary compliance under Indian Taxation Law is not presently available in Indian economy, why ?

    Therefore, Tax Practitioners Bill covering all well diversified group of Tax Professionals of India is the need of the hour. I hope that new Govt. in the centre will consider the issue for necessary action in the interest of Govt. revenue.

  17. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    Sir,
    It is common trend, public wants change after long period monopoly. Why such certificates only from Chartered accountants since 1984(30 years)without hearing voice of common man & assessees. These certificates not beneficial for businessman & government revenue except ICAI.
    For our country interest & common businessman interest government need to come forward to delete certificates from income tax act.

  18. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS

    In the above representation, ICAI talks about leakage of revenue. As per the statistics provided by B.S.K.Rao in this blog, only total sum of Rs.38,533/- Crores admitted as Income-Tax in respect of return filed for Asst. Year 2013-14 by non-corporates in ITR-4 & 5. Even holding 50% of Corporates do business with these non-corporates by selling goods for re-sale, Income-Tax admitted in ITR-4 & 5 should have exceeded Rs 1,00,000/- Crores (Because corporate Income-Tax admission in ITR-6 Rs.2,03,604/- Crores) In this situation who will accept above plea of ICAI. Common man can understand the situation.

  19. B.S.K.RAO says:

    ICAI (Financials) should change its attitude & approach keeping in mind the principle of “Law of Diminishing Returns” if not the day will come that Govt. should think about retaining the “The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India” an only act passed by parliament. Because, this was also cutioned by Sri.P.C.Padhi, one of the Senior Member of CBDT in 1984.

  20. ABHISHEK BHAKAT says:

    CA has a misconception is ” OUR PROFESSION IS BEST AND OTHERS IS WORST”.

    Nowadays CA’s are think that they are the only expertise in the field of Direct
    Taxation, Indirect Taxation, Central Excise, Banking, Service Tax etc. Matters.

    Actually,the present secnerio is “CA’S ARE JACK OF ALL TRADE BUT MASTER OF NONE”.

    PUNE, MAHARASTRA

  21. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    TO,

    CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
    DEPTT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
    NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001,

    Hon’ble Sir,

    On date PCS & PCMAS clubbed together may not exceed 10,000 numbers. I think it is better to include Tax Advocates & Income-Tax Practitioners standing in profession for 5 years, also within the definition of “accountants” under
    Direct Tax Code, 2013 to widen genuine tax base of assessees & also to avoid strict hurdle for voluntary compliance prevailing on date. This will also meet the intention of legislature in Section 288(2) of Original Income-Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 12A of Original Income-Tax Rules, 1962.

  22. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    RESPECTED CAS,

    I APPRECIATE YOU PEOPLE FOR TAKING CHALLENGING JOB OF AUDIT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA STATE. IF YOU SUCCEED IN FACING THE LITIGATION OF MEMBERS ABOUT THE AUDIT ISSUES BEFORE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEFINITELY YOU WILL GET UPPER HAND & FAME. WHAT IS THERE IN AUDIT OF BANKS & ITS BRANCHES WHERE IN ACCOUNTS ARE TALLIED ON DAILY BASIS & MEANINGFUL INTERNAL AUDIT OF BANK BRANCHES BY THEIR OWN OFFICERS FROM HEAD OFFICE IS PREVAILING ON DATE. I THINK EVERY BODY KNOWS THE RESULT OF MEANINGFUL AUDIT CONDUCTED BY CAG AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES BY CAS.

  23. B.S.K.RAO says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS,

    I here below furnish statistics of Income-Tax admitted in the return filed in ITR-4, ITR-5 & ITR-6 covered by Tax Audit U/s 44AB for the Asst. Year 2013-14, out of total revenue of around 6 Lakhs Crores from Direct Taxes, provided by CPC, Bangalore

    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-4 Rs 20,175 Crores
    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-5 Rs 18,358 Crores
    Total Tax Admitted in ITR-6 Rs 2,33,604 Crores

  24. B.S.K.RAO says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS,

    IN E-FILING PROJECT AGREEMENT BEARING F.No.E-Filing/1/2009(DIT)(S)-III
    Dt.25.11.2011 (Secret Document), it is stated that very purpose of Tax Audit in Income-Tax Act & uploading the same to E-Filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. is to utilise such data of SECTION WISE WRONG CLAIMS reported in FORM NO.3CD to conclude quality assessment.

  25. VENKATESH says:

    SATHYANARAYANA says:

    YOU PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE COMPLETE ABILITY OF A CA IN SO MANY AREAS EXCEPT TAX AUDIT.

    AGAINST TO THE ABOVE UNJUST ACTION OF ICAI, WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT TAX AUDIT IN INCOME-TAX ACT & DIRECT TAXES CODE ONLY. THEREFORE, OTHER AREA OF OPERATION OF CAS NOT RELEVANT FOR MAKING COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE. HOWEVER, I AM HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED THE FACT IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT “EXCEPT TAX AUDIT” THAT CAS ARE NOT CAPABLE TO CONDUCT TAX AUDIT IN INCOME-TAX ACT/DTC

  26. VENKATESH says:

    SATHYANARAYANA Say,

    Your Statement : YOU PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE COMPLETE ABILITY OF A CA

    CBDT is the policy making body for Income-Tax Law in India. There is duty on the part of CBDT to collect & maintain data of wrong claims reported in Form No.3CD to take policy decisions & also to enable assessing officers of Income-Tax Deptt. to utilize such data to conclude quality assessments. (Very purpose of uploading the same in e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt.). For the Asst. Year 2013-14 relating to Financial Year 2012-13, Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD uploaded to e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. through Deptt. utility as per CBDT Notification No.34/2013/F.No.142/5/2013-TPL Dt.01.05.201

    Kindly provide total of Section Wise Wrong Claims reported in Tax Audit Report-Form No.3CD that relates to returns filed in ITR-4 & ITR-5 uploaded to e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. for the Asst. Year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13).

    If that is so, why CBDT has filed to provide above information against my RTI Application. It is because, Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD wherein wrong claims are required to be reported on interpreting Income-Tax Law, Bonus Act, PF & ESI Act, Central Excise & Service Law & State Commercial tax law is the exclusive domain of Tax Advocates, but on date only CAs are allowed to sign off such Tax Audit Report Form No.3CD even in 2nd proviso to Section 44AB of Income-Tax Act (CAs are only financial accounting professionals & not law professionals and interepretaion of financial accounts not tough job, but interepretation of law is tough job)

  27. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    SATHYANARAYANA ji,
    Why CA’s not leave area of Advocates ” Practice of law” before Income tax authorities & tribunals. They regularly making contempt of honb’le Supreme court. which is a law under article 141 of constitution.

    It is not good practice of two profession ( law & accountancy only by CA’s) otherwise should be tax practitioner bill for all Representative u/s 288(2) income tax act 1961.

  28. SATHYANARAYANA says:

    MOST OF YOU PEOPLE EXPRESSED YOUR VIEWS THAT CAs ARE SIGNING THE REPORTS AND MAKING MONEY. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWING OTHERS TO COME TO THEIR AREA IS A BIASED EXPRESSION.

    BUT REMEMBER MOST OF YOU ARE EITHER COULD NOT ABLE TO PASS CA AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS BECAUSE OF YOUR IN ABILITY AND NEGLEGENCE IN STUDYING OR YOUR EXPIRED KITH OR KIN PRACICED AS CA AND LEFT YOU WITH SO MANY NUMBER OF FILES WHERE CA SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED AND YOU WERE OBTAINING THESE SIGNATURES THROUGH BENAMI CAs DURING ALL THESE DAYS AND NOW THE CBDT MADE IT STRICT THAT NO BENAMI AUDIT REPORTS CAN ME FILED.
    YOU PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE COMPLETE ABILITY OF A CA IN SO MANY AREAS EXCEPT TAX AUDIT. SO IF YOU WANT A BENAMI CA TO SIGN AS PER YOUR WINS AND FANCIES YOUR LIFE WILL BE MISARABLE IN FUTURE DAYS.
    YOU EXPECT CA TO BECOME AS NOTARY OR NOTARY TO BECOME CA WHICH IS HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE

  29. MANDEEP SINGH says:

    CA Priya ji,
    Practice of law before income tax authorities & tribunal also confined to only advocates as per advocate act 1961 & decision of honb’le supreme court in A.K BALA JI case. Mostly Chartered accountants regularly making contempt of honb’le Supreme court order by illegal trespass in the domain of Advocates.
    I hope you will suggest to CA’s for not being trespass in Advocate profession & follow honb’le supreme court order. Only write books of assessee & prepare Balance sheets which is original work of accountant.
    Pl explain me what is meaning of “practice of accountancy” as per section 32 of chartered accountants act 1949. Do you think practice of accountancy means “Practice of law” which is domain of only advocates.

  30. B.S.K.RAO says:

    DEAR ALL FRIENDS,

    TULA RASHI INDICATES JUSTICE. AS GOD SHANI MAHADEVA IS IN TULA RASHI, ONLY JUSTICE STANDS OUT & ALL UNJUST FORCES WILL BE KICKED OUT.

  31. CA Priya says:

    we can also argue that, lawers are having monopoly in representing a case in the courts…. each profession is different and has its own boundaries. The world knows how Advocates collect fees, and you talk about CAs taking high fees from corporates. Just know your limits and stay calm instead of making such noises.

  32. CA Priya says:

    Hi !

    Why do advocates want to enter into a domain not related to them ? They think they can do audit of an assessee, without knowledge of accounts. tax audit is not only about law. it is about accounting standards and audit. Will any CA be ever allowed to argue a case in the High Court, we dont interfere in that. Why do you want to get into audit ????

    After all you guys dont even pay service tax on fees collected… you enjoy the exemption, but we CAs pay service tax and you make noise that ICAI is shielding us ???? Disgusting.

  33. Ram says:

    The Idiotic arguments of some CA friends is worth Ignorable.They will make hue and cry putting the competencies and expertise stick when other professional are allowed to do Tax Audit which was not their domain at first place. They are created only to conduct statutory financial audit. The moment their bread and butter is under threat which is protected under statutory mandate rather than any economic sense they make all the wrong noises. It is the ICAI by backdoor lobby and dirty politics and influencing the power corridor have encroached the areas originally meant for CMAs,CS or Advocates citing the same competencies,expertise and capacity etc.. arguments. When Transfer pricing came 17 years back it was meant for ICWAI..look what is the status quo. So are other areas exclusively meant for ICWAI like stock audit,VAT audit and all the areas in Indirect tax. They share with others but never digest the fact other professional bodies are more than equally deserve to get into the areas which they think only their expertise. When their President says they are concerned it means their age old dirty politics is already began behind door.The draft cost audit rule in Nov 2013 and recent draft rules relating to ICSI in both cases the importance of CS and CMA is curtailed to the point of non existence.This move completely taken surprise to all CMA and CS fraternity.Now who is behind this is anybody’s guess. ICAI not only interfere in others affair but also ensure no other professional flourish.From the Cabinet ministers to beurocrats to policy makers and MPs both in Govt and Opposiitons ICAI has solid links which they use unethically for their advantage at others cost.All the readers of this portal just see this decision of Ministry will be reversed once new govt.came into power.

  34. B S K RAO says:

    K.Mukambika Madam,

    I have already preferred 1st Appeal, order not yet received. If I fail in 1st Appeal, I will prefere 2nd Appeal before CIC, only after knowing final out come of DTC-2013 & action of CBDT after that. Because, against my RTI Application made before CBDT in the matter of representation made by “Bar Coucil of India” about cause of Tax Advocates, CBDT replyed to me that “Representation of Bar Councial of India” has been considered as Pre-Budget Memorandum for full fledged Budget 2013-14. Therefore, I will wait to decide the next course of action. I hope K.Mukambika Madam will be convinced from this reply.

    B.S.K.RAO,
    MO: 0-9035089036, Call me for details
    E-Mail : raoshimoga@gmail.com

  35. K.MUKAMBIKA says:

    Mohit Agarwal Ji

    Kindly make corrections to the sentence as under :-

    Whereas ICAI(Financials) has given around 1 Lakh PCAs to RTI Applicants,

    As per the information received from this blog. I think B.S.K.Rao has placed RTI Application to CPC about seeking section wise wrong claims reported in Tax Audit Report uploaded to e-filing website of Income-Tax Deptt. for the Asst. Year 2013-14. B.S.K.Rao Sir, please let me know the position of your RTI. I think, if this information comes out, Ministry of Finance has to delete Tax Audit clause in Income-Tax Act, 1961 as well as in Direct Taxes Code, 2013

Leave a Comment

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

Search Post by Date
March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031