<?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 (12) TMI 226 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762646</link>
    <description>Auditors must comply with client-acceptance rules by first communicating with the outgoing auditor and waiting for a response before taking up the engagement; the document states that early acceptance and commencement of work without that clearance amounted to professional misconduct. It also states that an Emphasis of Matter cannot substitute for proper audit evidence, and that the auditors failed to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence on suspected fraud, going concern and expected credit loss, while relying on inadequate legal opinions and missing warning signs. Defective audit documentation and a wider pattern of non-compliance with auditing, ethics and quality-control requirements were treated as gross negligence, resulting in monetary penalties and a five-year debarment of the engagement partner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:37:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 226 - NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762646</link>
      <description>Auditors must comply with client-acceptance rules by first communicating with the outgoing auditor and waiting for a response before taking up the engagement; the document states that early acceptance and commencement of work without that clearance amounted to professional misconduct. It also states that an Emphasis of Matter cannot substitute for proper audit evidence, and that the auditors failed to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence on suspected fraud, going concern and expected credit loss, while relying on inadequate legal opinions and missing warning signs. Defective audit documentation and a wider pattern of non-compliance with auditing, ethics and quality-control requirements were treated as gross negligence, resulting in monetary penalties and a five-year debarment of the engagement partner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>