https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762585 Four companies were treated as related parties of the auditee because common directorships, shareholding patterns, effective control, and family-linked control showed substance over form under Section 2(76) of the Companies Act, 2013. The auditor's incomplete disclosure of revenue from those entities was held to be a material omission affecting scrutiny of auditor independence, and was found to constitute failure to exercise due diligence and professional misconduct. The plea of double jeopardy was rejected because the earlier action concerned audit deficiencies, while this proceeding concerned incomplete and misleading disclosure to the regulator. A monetary penalty was imposed on the noticee. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762585 Four companies were treated as related parties of the auditee because common directorships, shareholding patterns, effective control, and family-linked control showed substance over form under Section 2(76) of the Companies Act, 2013. The auditor's incomplete disclosure of revenue from those entities was held to be a material omission affecting scrutiny of auditor independence, and was found to constitute failure to exercise due diligence and professional misconduct. The plea of double jeopardy was rejected because the earlier action concerned audit deficiencies, while this proceeding concerned incomplete and misleading disclosure to the regulator. A monetary penalty was imposed on the noticee. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762585