Editor’s Note:
We are pleased to restart this Feature w.e.f. July 2025, after a long break, to keep our readers abreast of the latest developments at the ICAI and important announcements of the ICAI for its members. In the past, this Feature was contributed by the past presidents of the BCAS, Late CA P. N. Shah and CA Harish Motiwala. We are happy to inform you that CA Paras Savla has agreed to contribute this Feature. We thank CA Paras Savla and wish you a happy reading.
I OPINION
Accounting treatment of salary paid to the Company Secretary of the Company having a single unit project under construction, under the Ind AS framework.
Summary
The EAC opinion evaluates the appropriate accounting treatment for salary payments made to the Company Secretary during the construction phase of a single-unit project, in accordance with Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS). The focus is on determining whether such costs should be capitalised as part of the project cost or recognised as an expense in the period in which they are incurred.
Context and Facts of the Case
- Nature of the Company:
The company is currently in the project development phase, with a single unit under construction, which has not yet commenced commercial operations.
- Status of the Project:
The ongoing project qualifies as a “Qualifying Asset” under the provisions of Ind AS 16 (Property, Plant and Equipment) and potentially under Ind AS 23 (Borrowing Costs).
- Role of the Company Secretary (CS):
The Company Secretary is employed on a full-time basis during the construction phase, primarily undertaking:
♦ Statutory and compliance-related duties (e.g., Board meetings, ROC filings, maintaining statutory registers).
♦ Project-related legal and governance tasks are necessary for operational readiness.
- Cost Consideration:
The company incurs regular salary payments to the CS. However, there is no systematic time allocation maintained to segregate time spent between project-specific activities and routine corporate compliance functions.
- Financial Reporting Framework:
The company prepares its financial statements under the Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) framework.
Technical Query:
Is the company’s practice of capitalising the salary paid to the Company Secretary, considering it has a single-unit project (where tariff is determined based on the approved project cost), in line with the requirements of Ind AS? If not, what is the correct accounting treatment?
Key Observations & Technical Analysis
1. Principles of Capitalisation – Ind AS 16
- As per Para 16(b) of Ind AS 16, “directly attributable costs” necessary to bring an asset to the location and condition for it to be capable of operating as intended should be capitalised.
- However, Para 19 specifically excludes general administrative and overhead costs from capitalisation unless they are directly attributable to the construction or acquisition of the asset.
2. Role of Company Secretary – Nature of Duties
- The CS primarily undertakes:
♦ Statutory compliance
♦ Board governance
♦ Regulatory filings
These are entity-level governance functions and are not directly linked to the physical construction or technical development of the asset.
- In the absence of a clear, auditable time allocation, it is impractical to distinguish any portion of the salary as being directly attributable to the project.
3. Tariff Linked to Project Cost – Not a Determinant
- While the tariff determination may be based on the approved project cost (common in regulated sectors such as power, infrastructure, etc.), the accounting principles under Ind AS take precedence over regulatory pricing mechanisms.
- Regulatory approvals of cost do not override the recognition and measurement criteria prescribed under Ind AS. Only costs that meet the test of “directly attributable” under Ind AS 16 are eligible for capitalisation.
Conclusion and EAC’s Viewpoint
The salary paid to the Company Secretary does not qualify for capitalisation under Ind AS 16, since the duties performed are not directly attributable to the construction or physical development of the asset. Accordingly, this expense should be charged to the Statement of Profit and Loss in the period in which it is incurred.
(Refer to Pages 1631-1635 of C.A. Journal-June, 2025)
II CPE HOURS OF MEMBERS – CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE
The ICAI has notified that members who failed to complete their mandatory CPE hours for the calendar year 2024 are being granted a final opportunity to complete them by June 30, 2025.
This falls under Level I of the Consequential Provisions, which is part of the disciplinary/monitoring framework for non-compliance with Continuing Professional Education (CPE) requirements.
Who is Affected:
- Members in Practice and Industry who have not completed the minimum CPE hours for 2024.
Implications of Non-Compliance of CPE for 2024:
- Members who do not comply by June 30, 2025,
may face:
♦ Further consequences under Level II or III, or IV
♦ Ineligibility for certain ICAI positions or panels,
♦ Public disclosure of non-compliance in records.
- Level II Consequences (1-07-2025 to 31-12-2025) – From 1st July 2025, the non-compliance status for the year 2024 of the member would be displayed on the CPE Portal of the ICAI under his login till he has complied with the CPE requirement of twice the shortfall of CPE hours for that year.
- Level III Consequences (1-01-2026 to 30-06-2026)- From 1st January 2026, a Member holding Certificate of Practice (COP) is required to disclose the status of non-compliance of CPE hours requirement for the year 2024 in Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF) of ICAI (+) List of non-compliant members shall also be provided to Professional Development Committee (PDC) of the ICAI by CPE Committee of ICAI.
- Level IV Consequences (1-07-2026 to 31-12-2026) – if the individual or the firm is otherwise eligible for the issuance of a Peer Review Certificate, only a Provisional Peer Review Certificate would be issued to such Individual, if he has not complied with the CPE requirement for the year 2024. Level – IV 1st July 2026 to 31st December 2026 Firm, if any partner has not complied with the CPE requirement for the year 2024.
- Final consequences 1-01-2027 – If the member has not complied with CPE requirement for the year 2024 by 31st December 2026, then the CPE Committee may refer the matter to the Disciplinary Directorate for action as deemed fit for the violation of these guidelines. (Refer to Page 1639 of C.A. Journal-June, 2025)
III EXPOSURE DRAFT ON PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR OVERSEAS NETWORK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
ICAI Seeks Public Comments on Draft Guidelines for Overseas Networks
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has taken a significant step towards modernising the regulatory framework for Chartered Accountant firms through the establishment of the Committee for Aggregation of CA Firms (CACAF) in 2024-25. This specialised committee has been tasked with undertaking comprehensive studies, reviews, and revisions of various guidelines pertaining to CA firms, marking a crucial development in the profession’s regulatory landscape.
Background and Context
The formation of CACAF represents ICAI’s commitment to enhancing the operational framework for CA firms in an increasingly globalised business environment. As Indian businesses expand their international presence and foreign entities seek professional services from Indian CA firms, the need for clear, comprehensive guidelines governing overseas networks has become paramount.
The committee’s mandate encompasses a broad spectrum of activities aimed at strengthening the CA profession’s infrastructure, with particular emphasis on facilitating effective collaboration and maintaining professional standards across borders.
Key Development: Draft Guidelines for Overseas Networks
Following extensive deliberations and research, CACAF has developed draft Guidelines for Overseas Networks, which were presented to the ICAI Council during its 442nd meeting. Recognising the importance of stakeholder input in the regulatory process, the Council has approved the exposure of these guidelines for public consultation.
The draft guidelines address critical aspects of overseas network operations, including:
- Regulatory compliance requirements for international collaborations
- Professional standards and quality control measures
- Risk management frameworks for cross-border operations
- Ethical considerations in overseas network arrangements
- Documentation and reporting requirements
Public Consultation Process
ICAI has initiated a comprehensive public consultation process to ensure that the final guidelines reflect the diverse perspectives and practical insights of the profession’s stakeholders. The institute has made the exposure draft readily accessible to all interested parties.
Document Access: The complete Exposure Draft is available for download at: https://resource.cdn.icai.org/86376ed-cacaf-dgon.pdf
Submission Deadline: Recognising the importance of thorough stakeholder engagement, ICAI has extended the deadline for submitting comments to July 16, 2025 (Wednesday).
Multiple Submission Channels
To ensure maximum accessibility and convenience, ICAI has established multiple channels for submitting comments:
1. Online Submission: The most convenient option is through the dedicated Google Form available at: https://forms.gle/aNbDXFYJJWZ11Q8K7
2. Email Submission: Comments can be sent directly to the committee’s dedicated email address: cacaf@icai.in
3. Postal Submission: For those preferring traditional correspondence, written comments can be mailed to:
Secretary, Committee for Aggregation of CA Firms
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
ICAI Bhawan, Post Box No. 7100
Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi 110 002
IV INVITATION FOR EMPANELMENT AS EXAMINERS FOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS EXAMINATIONS
Who Can Apply
- Chartered Accountants: Minimum 5 years in practice or service.
- University Lecturers/Professors: Minimum 5 years of teaching experience.
- Must not exceed 65 years of age.
- Not eligible: those in CA coaching currently (5-year cooling-off period applicable), visually impaired, or previously rejected without serving the waiting period.
How to Apply
- Online submission via ICAI’s examiners panel portal.
- Print, sign & attach photo, then post with required documents to:
- CA Anand Kumar Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary (Exams), ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi
Selection Process
- Must pass a Computer-Based Qualifying Test:
♦ Part A: 25 MCQs in 30 minutes
♦ Part B: Evaluation of 5 sample answers in 2½ hours
Remuneration
- Foundation Papers 1 & 2: ₹160 per answer book
- Intermediate Papers: ₹200 each (for Paper 1,2,4,5)
- Final Papers: ₹250 per answer book
(Refer to Page 1641 of C.A. Journal-June, 2025)
V DISCIPLINARY CASES OF THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINE
1) Board of Discipline Case No. BOD/692/2023 dated 10-Feb-2025
Background:
- The complainant, owner of M/s M (later converted to a Section 8 company), accused CA of colluding with the Trust Secretary, leading to alleged misappropriation of over ₹18 crore.
- Allegations included failure to comply with Income Tax and ROC filings, causing penalties and disqualification of directors; ₹1.3 crore transferred to CA XYZ from the Trust Secretary’s account on the day of an alleged ₹7 crore theft from the Trust, CA allegedly issued a cheque for ₹3.7 crore as a settlement for misappropriated funds.
Board’s Observations:
- The complainant failed to provide credible evidence to prove theft or fraud.
- ₹1.3 crore received by the Respondent was explained as legitimate dues for professional services, supported by documents.
- The cheque for ₹3.7 crore was neither encashed nor supported by evidence suggesting it was related to fraud; the Respondent claimed it was issued under coercion.
- Several FIRs filed by the complainant against the CA were quashed or stayed by the High Court, citing them as baseless or filed under political pressure.
- Investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and other authorities revealed that the claim of theft itself was false and misleading.
Conclusion:
- The Board of Discipline (ICAI) held that CA is NOT GUILTY of other misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
2) Case No.: BOD/655/2022 Date of Order: 10th February 2025
Background:
This case arose from a complaint filed by A against CA, the former auditor of M/s B. The allegation centered around the Respondent’s refusal to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the incoming auditor, allegedly causing hardship to the company in appointing a new auditor. The complainant alleged that the Respondent acted with mala fide intent and deliberately delayed or denied the NOC, which was unethical and unprofessional.
Board’s Observations:
- The Complainant lacked locus standi, as he was neither a director nor an authorised officer of the company. The authorisation provided was incomplete and not supported by proper board resolutions.
- The dispute arose solely between two professionals (the Respondent and the incoming auditor) regarding procedural compliance for auditor change and pending audit fees.
- The Respondent cited non-payment of his legitimate audit fees as the reason for withholding the NOC initially. The NOC was subsequently issued after payment.
- The Board noted that the Complainant failed to appear before it, despite being served notice.
Conclusion:
- The Board of Discipline held the Respondent ‘Not Guilty’ of ‘Other Misconduct’ under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
3) Case No.: BOD/317/2017 | Date of Order: February 10 2025
Background:
This case was in connection with the widely publicised 2G Spectrum Case. The case was initiated based on CBI press releases, charge sheets, and media reports from 2011 alleging involvement in financial structuring and fund transfers aimed at circumventing Department of Telecommunications (DoT) regulations regarding license eligibility.
Key Allegations:
- Colluding with other accused persons, to structure companies in a manner that misrepresented the ownership of S to secure telecom licenses.
- Facilitating fund transfers of ₹95.51 crore and ₹3 crore to associated companies, allegedly to conceal the controlling interests.
- Supplying false information to the DoT regarding shareholding patterns to misrepresent eligibility.
Board’s Observations:
- The Board noted that the Special CBI Court (2G Spectrum Cases) had thoroughly adjudicated the matter and acquitted all accused, including the Respondent, citing a complete lack of evidence.
- The Special Court highlighted that the charge sheet was based on misreading, selective reading, and out-of-context interpretation of official records.
- The Court categorically stated that there was no evidence of criminality, no manipulation of policies, and no fraudulent intent proven.
- The Board recognised that the funding structures through debt instruments (like preference shares and debentures) did not violate DoT guidelines, which only restricted equity cross-holdings beyond 10%.
- The Board found that the Respondent acted within his professional role as an employee of the company, and no evidence substantiated any professional misconduct.
Conclusion:
The Board of Discipline held the Respondent ‘Not Guilty’ of ‘Other Misconduct’ under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, read with Section 22. Accordingly, the case was ordered to be closed under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007