ICAI

Chartered Accountants to disclosure fees-relative size of audit clients to ICAI w.e.f. 01.10.2023

CAs to disclosure Fees-Relative size of audit client to ICAI w.e.f. 01.10.2023

Disclosure of Fees-Relative size is to be made by a Chartered Accountant to ICAI w.e.f. 01.10.2023 as per reporting requirements pertaining to Fees related disclosure under the revised requirements in Code of Ethics

ICAI has made the provisions pertaining to “Fees – Relative Size” as contained in Code of Ethics applicable from 1.10.2022 with certain amendments.

Under the revised provisions of “Fees-Relative size”, disclosure is required to be made to the Institute in case where the gross annual professional fees from an Audit client exceeds the prescribed threshold percentage for two consecutive years.

A tabular presentation of the provisions are as under:

Audit Clients that are not Public Interest Entities Audit clients that are Public Interest Entities

Where an audit client is not a public interest entity and for two consecutive years, the total gross annual professional fees (“total fees”) from the client and its related entities represent more than 40% of the total fees received by the firm expressing the opinion on the financial statements of the client, the firm shall:

Disclose to the Institute the fact that for two consecutive years, the total of such fees represents more than 40% of the total fees received by the firm.

Provided that no such ceiling on the total fees of the firm shall be applicable where total fees of the firm does not exceed twenty lakhs of rupees in respect of a firm including fees received by the firm for other services rendered through the medium of a different firm or firms in which such member or firm may be a partner or proprietor. Provided further that no such ceiling on the total fees of a firm would be applicable in the case of audit of government Companies, public undertakings, nationalised banks, public financial institutions or where appointments of auditors are made by the Government or Regulators.

If the fees continue to exceed 40% after two years, the firm shall each year disclose to the Institute the matters prescribed

Where an audit client is a public interest entity and for two consecutive years, the total gross annual professional fees (“total fees”) from the client and its related entities represent more than 20% of the total fees received by the firm expressing the opinion on the financial statements of the client, the firm shall disclose to the Institute the fact that for two consecutive years, the total of such fees represents more than 20% of the total fees received by the firm.

Provided that no such ceiling on the total fees of the firm would be applicable where total fees of the firm does not exceed twenty lakhs of rupees in respect of a firm including fees received by the firm for other services rendered through the medium of a different firm or firms in which such member or firm may be a partner or proprietor.

Provided further that no such ceiling on the total fees of a firm would be applicable in the case of audit of government Companies, public undertakings, nationalised banks, public financial institutions or where appointments of auditors are made by the Government or Regulators.

If the fees continue to exceed 20%, after two years, the firm shall each year disclose to the Institute the prescribed matters 

In accordance with the provisions of revised paragraphs R410.3a and R410.4 of Volume-I of Code of Ethics, where the Fees related disclosure is to be made to the Institute, the CA firm shall make the disclosure in the prescribed form duly filled and signed. The form will be sent to Ethical Standards Board via email by CA Firm.

Read the ICAI Announcement Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Discontinuance of business of firm will not vest ownership of firm’s property with partners

Discontinuance of business of partnership firm will not result in vesting ownership of firm's property with individual partners for capital…

23 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B within 120 days is directory not mandatory

Stipulation of 120 days for release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B is directory not mandatory – Delhi High Court In…

1 day ago
  • ICAI

ICAI issues FAQs on key accounting implications arising from New Labour Codes

FAQs on key accounting implications arising from the New Labour Codes Recently, Government consolidated existing labour laws into four new…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80-IA(7) not allowed for delayed filing of audit report in Form 10CCB

Filing audit report in Form 10CCB within due date is mandatory. The assessee cannot claim deduction u/s 80-IA(7) he ground…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Is CSR expenditure is allowable under section 80G of Income Tax Act – ITAT says “Yes”

CSR expenditure of companies is allowable under section 80G unless fall under the two exceptions specified. In a recent judgment,…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction of ITAT is determined on the basis of situs of Assessing Officer

Jurisdiction of ITAT is determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of…

2 days ago