<?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>2024 (1) TMI 589 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448190</link>
    <description>An auditor of a listed public interest entity must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, properly plan and document the audit, assess going concern and material risks, and verify revenue, inventory, and required governance communications. Here, the audit file showed no adequate going concern assessment despite financial stress, no substantive verification of real estate revenue, no proper evidence on inventory, and missing working papers on planning, materiality, risk assessment, and engagement quality control review. These lapses were treated as gross negligence and lack of due diligence, constituting professional misconduct under the Companies Act and the Chartered Accountants Act. Monetary penalty and debarment were therefore imposed as proportionate and deterrent sanctions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 589 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448190</link>
      <description>An auditor of a listed public interest entity must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, properly plan and document the audit, assess going concern and material risks, and verify revenue, inventory, and required governance communications. Here, the audit file showed no adequate going concern assessment despite financial stress, no substantive verification of real estate revenue, no proper evidence on inventory, and missing working papers on planning, materiality, risk assessment, and engagement quality control review. These lapses were treated as gross negligence and lack of due diligence, constituting professional misconduct under the Companies Act and the Chartered Accountants Act. Monetary penalty and debarment were therefore imposed as proportionate and deterrent sanctions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448190</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>