I. REGULATORY UPDATE – ICAI ANNOUNCEMENT
a) Relaxation in compliance with the ‘Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate entities’ and ‘Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Limited Liability Partnerships’ for annual reporting period 2024-25
The ICAI has announced that compliance with the Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate Entities and the Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Limited Liability Partnerships, which were originally effective from April 1, 2024, has been relaxed for the annual reporting period 2024-25.
Application of these Guidance Notes during this period is voluntary. This relaxation does not affect the applicability of existing Accounting Standards or the Framework for Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, which remain mandatory.
b) Widening Scope of Mandatory Applicability of Audit Quality Maturity Model (AQMM) v.2.0 and Disclosure of Levels
CURRENT APPLICABILITY
AQMM is mandatory only for firms auditing:
- Listed entities
- Banks (other than Co-operative banks, except multi-state co-operative banks)
- Insurance companies (excluding firms conducting only branch audits)
EXPANDED APPLICABILITY (PHASED MANNER)
- From 1st April 2026
- Firms auditing holding/subsidiary/associates/JVs of listed entities, banks (other than co-operative, except multi-state co-operative banks), and insurance companies (excluding branch audits).
- Firms undertaking statutory audit of unlisted public companies with:
- Paid-up capital ≥ ₹500 crores, or
- Annual turnover ≥ ₹1000 crores, or
- Outstanding loans, debentures & deposits ≥ ₹500 crores.
- From 1st April 2027
- Firms undertaking statutory audit of entities which have raised > ₹50 crores from public/banks/FIs during review period or any body corporate (including trusts) covered under public interest entities.
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
- AQMM v.2.0 level of a firm to be:
- Hosted level-wise on ICAI website by Peer Review Board.
- Printed on Peer Review Certificates issued to firms.
II. Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) Opinion – September 2025
Recognition of Liability towards Planned Expenditure for Stage-II Forest Clearance and Environmental Management Plan under Ind AS
FACTS OF THE CASE
- A Government of India PSU engaged in bauxite mining, alumina/aluminium production, captive power generation and wind power.
- For a newly allotted bauxite mine the Company obtained:
- Stage-I Forest Clearance (Jan 2023) – paid ₹262.12 crore for compensatory afforestation etc., booked as Intangible Assets under development.
- Stage-II Forest Clearance (July 2023) – subject to revenue-type activities (soil erosion control, green belt etc.) estimated at ₹9.89 crore.
- Environmental Clearance (June 2023) – requires an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) with planned capital works/equipment of ₹120 crore and annual maintenance ~₹12 crore.
- Company view: No liability recognised for ₹9.89 crore or ₹120 crore as the obligating event arises only on execution of the mining lease / commencement of operations.
- C&AG Audit view: Present obligations exist once clearances are granted and undertakings given; non-recognition understates liabilities and capital work-in-progress.
QUERY
(i) Whether the Company’s approach of recognising liability for Stage-II forest clearance expenditure only on execution of mining lease is correct under Ind AS.
(ii) Whether liability for EMP expenditure should be recognised only when equipment is procured/works executed, or at the date of Environmental Clearance.
POINTS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE
- Ind AS 37 (Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets):
- Provision requires a present obligation from a past event, probable outflow, and reliable estimate.
- No provision for costs required merely to operate in the future; obligation must exist independently of future actions.
- Obtaining Stage-II and Environmental Clearances and giving undertakings do not themselves create a present obligation; they are commitments for future operations.
- Present obligation arises only when the Company performs activities that cause the impact requiring mitigation e.g., entering forest land, commencing mining, causing pollution.
- Timing of recognition demands management judgement based on specific conditions and commencement of the obligating activity.
EAC’S OPINION
- No provision should be recognised at the stage of giving undertakings or merely receiving clearances.
- Liability and corresponding asset arise only when a present obligation exists, i.e., when mining operations/activities trigger the need to incur the specified mitigation or pollution-control expenditure.
- Until then, these are capital commitments requiring disclosure, not recognition as liabilities or assets.
ICAI Journal – The Chartered Accountant September 2025 pages 115-121
Link: https://resource.cdn.icai.org/87967cajournal-sep2025-32.pdf
III. ICAI Awards Nomination
a) ICAI Awards for Excellence in Financial Reporting 2024–25
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India invites enterprises to participate in its prestigious Awards for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
HIGHLIGHTS
- Objective: To recognise and encourage high-quality preparation and presentation of financial statements.
- Awards: One Gold Shield and one Silver Shield in each category for the best annual reports.
- Eligibility: Annual reports for financial year ending between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025.
- Last Date: 15 October 2025.
AWARD CATEGORIES
Public & Private Sector Banks, Life & Non-life Insurance, Financial Services, Manufacturing & Trading (large and small turnover), Service Sector, Infrastructure & Construction, Not-for-Profit, Public Sector Enterprises, and Co-operatives.
PARTICIPATION
Submit entry form and documents online: https://bit.ly/efricao2025 and send hard copies to ICAI Research Committee.
b) ICAI–ZEE Business: CA Business Leader 40 Under 40 Awards
ICAI, in partnership with ZEE Business, invites nominations for the “CA Business Leader 40 Under 40 Award” to honour young Chartered Accountants driving innovation and growth in industry, entrepreneurship, and public service.
Why Apply
Gain national recognition, networking opportunities, and professional visibility while inspiring the next generation of CAs.
Categories
Manufacturing, Services, MSME, Start-up, BFSI, Women, Overseas, Others
Eligibility & Process
For ICAI members under 40. Entries validated by a process auditor and reviewed by an eminent jury.
Participation
Submit entry form and documents online by yourself or your employees:
♦ zeebiz.com/icai40under40
IV. ICAI BOARD OF DISCIPLINE CASES
1. Case: Dy. Registrar of Companies, WB vs. CA. P PR/G/354/2021/DD/64/2023/BOD/739/2024
Date of Order: 29.07.2025
Particulars | Details |
Complainant | Dy. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (MCA) |
Nature of Case | Negligence in safeguarding Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) and failure to appear before investigating authorities |
Background | Investigation into a shell company post-demonetisation scrutiny revealed that its tax audit reports for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were signed using the Respondent’s DSC. Summons were issued to the Respondent in 2018 but he failed to appear. |
Key Allegations | – Failure to appear before ROC Inspectors despite valid summons.
– Negligence in maintaining and safeguarding his DSC, enabling alleged misuse for filing tax audit reports without his knowledge. – Failure to update ICAI with his current address, obstructing investigation. |
Respondent’s Defence | – Denied filing the tax audit reports and claimed he never received the 2018 summons.
– Stated he had moved residence and inadvertently not updated ICAI records. – Alleged that a senior CA misused his DSC without consent when they shared office space. |
Findings | – Admitted to sharing DSC and failing to secure it.
– Provided no evidence of corrective action (no police complaint or revocation). – Negligence compromised integrity of digital filing system. – Defence of non-receipt of summons rejected; responsibility to safeguard DSC lies with holder. |
Charges Established | Professional Misconduct under Clause (2), Part IV, First Schedule – “Other Misconduct”. |
Punishment | Reprimand under Section 21A (3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. |
2. Case: CA. S. vs. CA. R. PR/162/2023/DD/200/2023/BOD/753/2024
Date of Order: 29.07.2025
Particulars | Details |
Complainant | CA. S |
Nature of Case | Non-communication with previous auditor on acceptance of audit (breach of professional standard) |
Background | The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, on being appointed as statutory auditor of a client, accepted the audit engagement without first communicating in writing with the previous auditor as mandated by the Code of Ethics and the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. |
Key Allegations | Violation of the requirement to obtain a no-objection/communicate with the outgoing auditor before accepting the audit assignment. |
Respondent’s Defence | Appeared before the Board, acknowledged receipt of findings, and offered representation but did not disprove the allegation of non-communication. |
Findings | The Board held that the Respondent failed to communicate with the previous auditor prior to acceptance, constituting Professional Misconduct under Item (8), Part I, First Schedule – failure to comply with provisions regarding acceptance of audit work. |
Punishment | Monetary penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 21A(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. |
3. Case: Shri S. Roy Superintendent of Police & Head of Branch, CBI EOW vs. CA. G PR/G/121/19/DD/238/2019/BOD/613/2022
Date of Order: 29.07.2025
Particulars | Details |
Complainant | Shri Sudip Roy, Superintendent of Police & Head of Branch, CBI EOW, Kolkata |
Nature of Case | Other Misconduct – connivance in preparation of fake documents for car loan |
Background | A CBI case was registered in 2016 based on Allahabad Bank’s complaint. It was found that a Honda City car originally owned by a borrower group (HVPL / Tarun Textiles – NPA accounts) was transferred without consideration to the then Chief Manager of Allahabad Bank, Shri R.K. Singh. To cover the irregularity, Shri Singh obtained a ₹4 lakh car loan in March 2012 from Allahabad Bank by showing purchase of the same car from a second-hand dealer “M/s First Drive.” |
Key Allegations | – Respondent CA connived with Shri Anil Agarwal of M/s First Drive in preparing a fake bill/delivery challan of ₹4.70 lakh showing sale of the Honda City car to Shri R.K. Singh. – The said bill was used by Shri Singh to obtain a car loan of ₹4 lakh from Allahabad Bank.- Respondent further arranged routing of ₹4.70 lakh through Hena Vincom Pvt. Ltd. and handed over cash to Shri Singh, thereby facilitating adjustment of funds. |
Respondent’s Defence | – Claimed the matter was over 10 years old, making it difficult to gather records.
-Denied direct involvement; argued allegations were based on contradictory third-party statements. – Submitted that bills were forwarded only on request of the accused; the loan had already been applied on an earlier-dated bill. – Requested charges to be quashed. |
Findings | – Respondent was aware of the parties and the transaction.
– Evidence showed he emailed bills/documents to Anil Agarwal, admitted during hearing to “mistakenly” forwarding them. – Statements of Anil Agarwal and the Respondent himself established his role in arranging fake documentation and adjustment of ₹4.70 lakh. – Board held him guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2), Part IV, First Schedule, CA Act, 1949 read with Section 22. |
Punishment | Reprimand imposed by the Board of Discipline under Section 21A(3) of the CA Act, 1949. |