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

Assessee eligible for Chapter VIA deduction u/s 80IE on increased income due to disallownces

Assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under Chapter VIA under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Assessee filing ITR under presumptive tax can’t be faulted for not giving details not mandated

Assessee could not be faulted for showing only cash in hand and bank balance as capital following presumptive taxation when…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Sale of flats in a real estate project held capital gains considering intention of assessee

Sale of flats in a real estate project held capital gains as intention of the assesee was to hold that…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Interest liability recognised by journal entries at the close of year, can’t be termed as fictitious – ITAT

Merely because interest liability was recognised by journal entries at the close of the year, it does not make expenditure…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash deposits in bank which were immediately transferred to other accounts – addition deleted

Addition for cash deposits in bank account which were immediately transferred to other accounts deleted in absence any enquiry by…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT disallows 6% for alleged bogus purchases being appropriate

ITAT disallows 6% for alleged bogus purchases as purchases from unregistered dealers could not be ruled out. In a recent…

3 days ago