No bar on acceptance of more than 15% fees from a single client by chartered accountants – ICAI Clarifies that only requirement is of disclosure
ICAI Announcement
As the members are aware, the revised Code of Ethics will come into effect w.e.f 1st July, 2020.
Some members have expressed their concern on one of the provisions contained in Paragraph R410.4 of the Volume-I of revised Code of Ethics on measures for addressing self-interest threats resulting from dependence of Fees from a single client.
It may be clarified that there is NOT a bar in the revised Code of Ethics on acceptance of more than 15% fees from a single client. There is only requirement of disclosure , and taking safeguards prescribed therein, if the total gross annual professional fees from the audit client and its related entities represent more than 15% of the total fees received by the firm expressing the opinion on the financial statements of the client for two consecutive years.
Accordingly, the Audit may be continued while taking safeguards as mentioned in the said Paragraph.
It may further be clarified that this rule would not apply in Case of audit of Government Companies, public undertakings, nationalized banks, public financial institutions or where appointments are made by Government; OR where the total gross annual fees of the Firm does not exceed five lakhs of rupees.
It may also be relevant to note that the rule applies ONLY where such Fees is received from an AUDIT CLIENT
Penalty u/s 271B is not attracted in a case where books of account have not been maintained In a recent…
NALCO invites RFP for empanelment of Chartered Accountant Firms for verification of Stores/Spares and movable assets. NALCO has invited Request…
Sending or bringing currency of Nepal and Bhutan - RBI revises exiting regulations RBI has notified the Foreign Exchange Management…
Entire manufacturing process though by distinct units relevant for exemption from excise duty on account of manufacture without aid of…
High Court condoned delay in filing Form 10B as the failure was in the 1st Year of operation of the…
Penalty u/s 270A quashed as there was no satisfaction in the penalty order on what exactly was under reporting of…