<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (7) TMI 1246 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440973</link>
    <description>An auditor of a listed company was found to have failed to report material non-compliances with accounting standards and Schedule III presentation requirements, including non-recognition of accrued interest, unsupported deferred tax assets, inadequate inventory disclosure, and improper amortisation. The audit file also lacked sufficient documentation, timely assembly of the final file, documented engagement terms, evidence of engagement quality review, and recorded communications with those charged with governance. These lapses were treated as substantive breaches of auditing standards, and the cumulative conduct was held to amount to professional misconduct. Monetary penalty and one-year debarment were considered warranted on proportionality grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1246 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440973</link>
      <description>An auditor of a listed company was found to have failed to report material non-compliances with accounting standards and Schedule III presentation requirements, including non-recognition of accrued interest, unsupported deferred tax assets, inadequate inventory disclosure, and improper amortisation. The audit file also lacked sufficient documentation, timely assembly of the final file, documented engagement terms, evidence of engagement quality review, and recorded communications with those charged with governance. These lapses were treated as substantive breaches of auditing standards, and the cumulative conduct was held to amount to professional misconduct. Monetary penalty and one-year debarment were considered warranted on proportionality grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>