ICAI

No bar on acceptance of more than 15% fees from a single client- ICAI Clarification

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

Sub. : Clarification on Fees from a single client

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

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income assessee is invalid

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income by the assessee was invalid. Before filing ITR provisions…

10 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law – High Court

Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law. Mere activation of PAN not give right…

14 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE once assessee waived option

Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE of the Act once assessee waived the option available In a…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Whether seized document is incriminating or not is a findings of fact – High Court

Whether seized document is incriminating or not is definitely a findings of fact – High Court In a recent judgment,…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Interest earned on borrowed funds/unutilized capital subsidy is capital receipts – High Court

Interest earned on borrowed funds/ unutilized capital subsidy are capital receipts In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

No statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act – HC

There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand  …

2 days ago