I OPINION
EAC Clarifies Accounting Treatment of Investment in Erstwhile Associate under Ind AS
The Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has issued an opinion addressing the accounting treatment of an investment in an erstwhile associate company under the Ind AS framework, following a query from a listed company transitioning to Ind AS.
Background:
The company had held shares in an associate (X Ltd.) since the 1970s. Due to financial distress, X Ltd. was referred to BIFR in 1998-99, and the investing company provided for 100% of its investment. Upon Ind AS transition in FY 2016-17, the investment was carried at a notional value of ₹1, using this as deemed cost under Ind AS 101.
In FY 2021-22, following a rights issue in which the investor did not participate, its holding dropped to 19%, and X Ltd. ceased to be an associate. Subsequently, in FY 2023-24, with the financial turnaround of X Ltd., the company proposed revaluation of the investment to fair value (~₹40–50 crore) through Other Comprehensive Income (OCI).
Key Question:
Can the company now measure its investment in X Ltd. at fair value through OCI (FVOCI)?
EAC’s Opinion:
- As per Ind AS 109, an entity may opt to measure investments in equity instruments at FVOCI only at the time of initial recognition.
- Since the company did not make an irrevocable FVOCI election when the associate ceased to be an associate in FY 2021-22 (initial recognition under Ind AS 109), it cannot do so retrospectively now.
- Hence, the investment must be measured at fair value through Profit or Loss (FVTPL) in the current period.
Conclusion:
The Company must account for the investment in X Ltd. at FVTPL, not FVOCI, as the FVOCI option was not exercised at the appropriate time of reclassification under Ind AS 109.
ICAI Journal July 2025 Pages 150-152
Link:https://resource.cdn.icai.org/86757cajournal-july2025-41.pdf
II FAQS ON GUIDANCE NOTE FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NON-CORPORATE ENTITIES
ICAI Issues FAQs on Guidance Note for Financial Statements of Non-Corporate Entities – Applicable from April 1, 2024
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has released a comprehensive set of FAQs relating to its Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate Entities, jointly issued by the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) and Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB). This Guidance Note standardises the presentation of financial statements of non-corporate entities, aiming to improve quality, comparability, and reliability. It comes into effect from accounting periods beginning on or after April 1, 2024.
Key Highlights:
- Scope of Applicability:
Applicable to all business/professional entities other than companies and LLPs, including:
♦ Proprietorships, HUFs, Partnership firms, AOPs, Societies, Trusts, Statutory bodies, and others engaged in business/profession.
- Exclusions:
Not applicable where:
♦ Specific formats are prescribed by law or regulators,
♦ Entities like NPOs, political parties, or educational institutions follow ICAI’s other specific guidance.
- Supersession of Technical Guide (2022):
The earlier Technical Guide on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate Entities (2022) stands superseded by this Guidance Note.
- Prescribed Formats:
The Guidance Note mandates formats for financial statements. Additional line items may be added, and items with nil balances for both current and previous years may be omitted.
- Comparative Figures:
Comparative financials for the immediately preceding year are required in the prescribed format (except for entities preparing financials for the first time).
- Auditor’s Responsibility:
Non-compliance with the Guidance Note must be evaluated by the auditor for possible reporting or modification of opinion, in line with SA requirements. Professional judgment and documentation are essential.
- Applicability to NPOs:
For Not-for-Profit Organisations, ICAI’s Technical Guide on Accounting for NPOs remains applicable.
Revised Classification & AS Applicability for Non-Company Entities (from April 1, 2024)
ICAI has also issued a revised classification framework for non-company entities regarding the applicability of Accounting Standards, effective April 1, 2024, replacing the 2020 scheme.
Classification:
- MSMEs (Micro, Small & Medium-sized Entities):
Based on turnover ≤ ₹250 crore, borrowings ≤ ₹50 crore, not listed, not banks/FIs, and not subsidiaries/holding of large entities.
- Large Entities:
Non-company entities not meeting MSME criteria.
Compliance Requirements:
- Large Entities: Full compliance with all Accounting Standards.
- MSMEs: Eligible for exemptions/relaxations in certain AS (e.g., AS 3, 17, 20, 24). Must disclose if exemptions are availed.
The revised scheme can also be accessed at the following link https://resource.cdn.icai.org/82761asb66837.pdf
III EXPERT PANEL
Expert Panel Support by AASB – Audit Season 2025
The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AASB) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has reconstituted its Expert Panel to provide technical support to members during the upcoming Audit Season 2025, in continuation of the initiative undertaken over the past three years.
- Panel Availability: 11th July 2025 to 30th September 2025
- Email for Queries: auditfaq@icai.in
Guidelines for Submission:
- Be brief yet provide complete facts.
- Do not mention the name of any client or entity.
- Do not send the same query multiple times.
- Refrain from follow-up rejoinders.
- Exercise professional judgment while relying on responses.
The panel operates on a best-effort basis. Responses are personal views of experts and not the official views of ICAI/AASB. These should not be used as evidence in any judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings. AASB reserves the right to not respond to certain queries without assigning any reason.
Members are encouraged to make use of this support initiative during the audit season.
IV DISCIPLINARY CASE SUMMARY – ICAI DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
- Case No.: DC/1726/2023
Complainant: Deputy Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
Order Date: 11th February 2025
Outcome: Not Guilty of Professional and Other Misconduct
Background:
The complaint alleged that CA R, in his capacity as the statutory auditor and certifying professional, filed Form INC-22A (ACTIVE) for H Pvt. Ltd., showing a registered office address that, upon later inspection by the Registrar of Companies (RoC), was allegedly non-existent. The concern arose in the context of broader investigations into companies suspected of Chinese ownership using dummy directors, false documents, and allegedly involved in illegal activities such as money laundering and tax evasion.
Key Allegation:
- Certifying a false registered office address in Form INC-22A filed in April 2019, despite the premises not being maintained by the company at the time of inspection in December 2021.
Respondent’s Defence:
- The office address had been unchanged since incorporation in 2011.
- Photographs and documents used to certify Form INC-22A were obtained from the company.
- Physical verification by the RoC occurred 2.5 years after the form was certified.
- The registered office was leased from a Chartered Accountant known to the Respondent, and the premises were visited earlier.
- No rent was paid as the company had remained non-operational since inception.
- There was no legal requirement for a CA to personally verify premises before certifying Form INC-22A.
- The Respondent was not involved in the incorporation process or alleged illegal activities.
Committee’s Findings:
- The certification was done based on documents and photographs as allowed under MCA norms.
- Form INC-22A requirements were met, including attaching photographs and declaring satisfaction regarding the address.
- The physical inspection occurred long after the certification, and no causal link to the Respondent’s conduct was established.
- The Respondent was not named in any wrongdoing in the Registrar’s inquiry report.
- The Economic Offences Wing confirmed that the Respondent was not involved in the criminal investigation and removed his name from the lookout notice.
Conclusion:
After considering the Respondent’s submissions, the delay in inspection, and absence of contrary evidence, the Disciplinary Committee held CA R of:
- Other misconduct under Item (2), Part IV, First Schedule, and
- Professional misconduct under Item (7), Part I, Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
The case has been closed as per Rule 19(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.
2. Case No.: DC/191/2012
Complainant: Deputy Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
Order Date: 10th February 2025
Outcome: Not Guilty of Professional and Other Misconduct
Background:
The Reserve Bank of India alleged that CA B, as statutory auditor for six investment companies during FY 2007–08, failed to report that these companies were carrying on business as Non-Banking Financial Institutions (NBFIs) without obtaining the required Certificate of Registration (CoR) under Section 45-IA of the RBI Act, 1934. The companies involved included M/s E Pvt. Ltd., F Investments Pvt Ltd, H Investments Pvt Ltd, S Investments Pvt Ltd, S Holdings Pvt Ltd, and V Investments Pvt Ltd.
The complaint alleged non-compliance with the Non-Banking Financial Companies Auditor’s Report (RBI) Directions, 2008, particularly Paragraphs 2 and 5 which required exception reporting to both the Board of Directors and RBI.
Respondent’s Defence:
- The companies did not accept any public deposits and were engaged in investment activities, thus falling outside the CoR requirements under Section 45-IA.
- Since no deposit-taking activity occurred, there was no need to file any exception reports.
- The RBI did not initiate penal action against the companies or the auditor.
- Exception reports were subsequently submitted post-CBI probe to avoid adverse regulatory action, though no violations were ultimately found.
Committee’s Findings:
- No evidence was presented to prove that the companies engaged in activities requiring RBI registration.
- No regulatory penalties or proceedings were initiated by RBI against the companies.
- Financial records showed loans from directors and investments in shares, not public deposit mobilisation.
- The Respondent had exercised professional judgement and fulfilled his audit duties under the applicable provisions.
Conclusion:
The Disciplinary Committee held that CA B was Not Guilty of Professional Misconduct under Clause (7), Part I, Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which pertains to lack of due diligence or gross negligence.
Accordingly, the case was closed under Rule 19(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.
3. Case No.: DC/1910/2024
Order Date: 8th February 2025
Outcome: Held Guilty of professional misconduct and monetary penalty of ₹25,000 levied
Background:
CA A served as the statutory auditor of a religious trust (Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, Dhrangadhra) for the financial years 2011–12 to 2016–17. The complaint alleged that the auditor failed to report a violation of Section 35 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 concerning an investment of ₹23.23 lakh made by the trust into a private company, which was not in accordance with the statutory provisions for public trust funds.
Nature of Misconduct:
- Failure to report non-compliance with Section 35 in the audit report despite repeated disclosure of the same amount (₹23.23 lakh) as “Other Deposits” over six consecutive financial years.
- Lack of audit evidence: No supporting documentation for the deposit or asset purchase was obtained or verified.
- Over-reliance on management representation despite the materiality (70% of the balance sheet size) and lack of corroborating documentation.
- Failure to consider issuing a qualified or disclaimer opinion under SA 705, even when sufficient evidence was not available.
Committee’s Findings:
- The auditor pleaded guilty during the hearing on 16th December 2024.
- The funds were never applied for the intended asset purchase and were returned only in FY 2017–18.
- The Assistant Charity Commissioner also concluded that the trust violated Section 35.
- The Committee held that the Respondent failed to exercise due diligence and did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, violating:
•Item (7): Gross negligence in professional duties
•Item (8): Failure to obtain sufficient information to express a valid opinion
of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
Outcome:
- Held Guilty of professional misconduct.
- A monetary penalty of ₹25,000 was imposed, payable within 60 days.