Menu Close

CA Inter The Company Audit Important Questions

Auditing and Assurance Chapter 10: The Company Audit

CA Inter Auditing and Assurance Chapter 10, The Company Audit, Important Solved Questions for May 2021 & November 2021 Exams.

Question 1

Mr. A, a practicing Chartered Accountant, is holding securities of XYZ Ltd. having face value of ₹ 900. Whether Mr. A is qualified for appointment as an auditor of XYZ Ltd.?

Solution

As per section 141(3)(d)(i), an auditor is disqualified to be appointed as an auditor if he, or his relative or partner holding any security of or interest in the company or its subsidiary, or of its holding or associate  company or a subsidiary of such holding company.

In the present case, Mr. A is holding security of ₹ 900 in XYZ Ltd. Therefore, he is not eligible for appointment as an auditor of XYZ Ltd.


Question 2

Mr. P is a practicing Chartered Accountant and Mr. Q, the relative of Mr. P, is holding securities of ABC Ltd. having face value of ₹ 90,000.  Whether Mr. P is qualified from being appointed as an auditor of ABC Ltd.?

Solution

As per section 141(3)(d)(i), a person is disqualified to be appointed as an auditor if he, or his relative or partner is holding any security of or interest in the company or its subsidiary, or of its holding or associate company or a subsidiary of such holding company. Further, as per proviso to this section, the relative of the person may hold the securities or interest in the company of face value not exceeding of ₹ 1,00,000.

In the present case, Mr. Q. (relative of Mr. P), is having securities of ₹ 90,000 face value in ABC Ltd., which is as per requirement of proviso to section 141(3)(d)(i). Therefore, Mr. P will not be disqualified to be appointed as an auditor of ABC Ltd.


Question 3

M/s BC & Co. is an Audit Firm having partners Mr. B and Mr. C, and Mr. A the relative of Mr. C, is holding securities of MWF Ltd. having face value of ₹ 1,01,000. Whether M/s BC & Co. is qualified from being appointed as an auditor of MWF Ltd.?

Solution

As per section 141(3)(d)(i), a person is disqualified to be appointed as an auditor if he, or his relative or partner is holding any security of or interest in the company or its subsidiary, or of its holding or associate company or a subsidiary of such holding company. Further as per proviso to this section, the relative of the person may hold the securities or interest in the company of face value not exceeding of ₹ 1,00,000.

In the instant case, M/s BC & Co, will be disqualified for appointment as an auditor of MWF Ltd. as the relative of Mr. C (i.e. partner of M/s BC & Co.) is holding the securities in MWF Ltd. which is exceeding the limit mentioned in proviso to section 141(3)(d)(i).


Question 4

M/s RM & Co. is an audit firm having partners CA. R and CA. M. The firm has been offered the appointment as an auditor of Enn Ltd. for the Financial Year 2016-17. Mr. Bee, the relative of CA. R, is holding 5,000 shares (face value of ₹ 10 each) in Enn Ltd. having market value of ₹ 1,50,000. Whether M/s RM & Co. is disqualified to be appointed as auditors of Enn Ltd.?

Solution

As per section 141(3)(d)(i), a person shall not be eligible for appointment as an auditor of a company, who, or his relative or partner is holding any security of or interest in the company or its subsidiary, or of its holding or associate company or a subsidiary of such holding company. However, as per proviso to this section, the relative of the person may hold the securities or interest in the company of face value not exceeding of ₹ 1,00,000.

In the instant case, M/s RM & Co. is an audit firm having partners CA. R and CA.

M. Mr. Bee is a relative of CA. R and he is holding shares of Enn Ltd. of face value of ₹ 50,000 only (5,000 shares x ₹ 10 per share).

Therefore, M/s RM & Co. is not disqualified for appointment as an auditors of Enn Ltd. as the relative of CA. R (i.e. partner of M/s RM & Co.) is holding the securities in Enn Ltd. which is within the limit mentioned in proviso to section 141(3)(d)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013.


Question 5

CA. Poshin is providing the services of investment banking to C Ltd. Later on, he was also offered to be appointed as an auditor of the company for the current financial year. Advise.

Solution

Section 141(3)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013 disqualifies a person for appointment as an auditor of a company who, directly or indirectly, renders any service referred to in section 144 to the company or its holding company or its subsidiary company. Section 144 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes certain services not to be rendered by the auditor which includes investment banking services.

Therefore, CA. Poshin is advised not to accept the assignment of auditing as the investment banking service is specifically notified in the list of services not to be rendered by him as per section 141(3)(i) read with section 144 of the Companies Act, 2013.


Question 6

Mr. A, a chartered accountant, has been appointed as an auditor of Laxman Ltd. in the Annual General Meeting of the company held in September, 2016, which assignment he accepted. Subsequently in January, 2017 he joined Mr. B, another chartered accountant, who is the Manager Finance of Laxman Ltd., as partner. Comment

Solution

Section 141(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes that any person who is a partner or in employment of an officer or employee of the company will be disqualified to act as an auditor of a company. Subsection (4) of Section 141 provides that an auditor who becomes subject, after his appointment, to any of the disqualifications specified in sub-sections (3) of Section 141, he shall be deemed to have vacated his office as an auditor.

In the present case, Mr. A, an auditor of Laxman Ltd., joined as partner with Mr. B, who is Manager Finance of Laxman Limited. The given situation has attracted subsection (3)(c) of Section 141 and, therefore, he shall be deemed to have vacated office of the auditor of Laxman Limited in accordance with sub-section (4) of section 141.


Question 7

Managing Director of Pigeon Ltd. himself wants to appoint CA. Champ, a practicing Chartered Accountant, as first auditor of the company. Comment

Solution

Section 139(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 lays down that the first auditor of a company shall be appointed by the Board of Directors within 30 days from the date of registration of the company. In the instant case, the proposed appointment of CA. Champ, a practicing Chartered Accountant, as first auditor by the Managing Director of Pigeon Ltd. by himself is in violation of Section 139(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which authorizes the Board of Directors to appoint the first auditor of the company.

In view of the above, the Managing Director of Pigeon Ltd. should be advised not to appoint the first auditor of the company.


Question 8

The first auditor of Bhartiya Petrol Ltd., a Government company, was appointed by the Board of Directors. Comment

Solution

In the case of a Government Company, the appointment of first auditor is governed by the provisions of Section 139(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 which states that in the case of a Government company, the first auditor shall be appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India within 60 days from the date of registration of the company. Hence, in the case of Bhartiya Petrol Ltd., being a government company, the first auditor shall be appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Thus, the appointment of first auditor made by the Board of Directors of Bhartiya Petrol Ltd., is null and void.


Question 9

CA. Donald was appointed as the auditor of PS Ltd. at the remuneration of ₹ 30,000. However, after 4 months of continuing his services, he could not continue to hold his office of the auditor as his wife got a government job at a distant place and he needs to shift along with her to the new place. Thus, he resigned from the company and did not perform his responsibilities relating to filing of statement to the company and the registrar indicating the reasons and other facts as may be relevant with regard to his resignation.

How much fine may he be punishable with under section 140(3) for non-compliance of section 140(2) of the Companies Act, 2013?

Solution

For non-compliance of sub-section (2) of section 140 of the Companies Act, 2013, the auditor shall be punishable with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees or the remuneration of the auditor, whichever is less but which may extend to five lakh rupees, under section 140(3) of the said Act.

Thus, the fine under section 140(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be less than ₹ 30,000 but which may extend to ₹ 5,00,000 .


Question 10

“ABC & Co.” is an Audit Firm having partners “Mr. A”, “Mr. B” and “Mr. C”, Chartered Accountants. “Mr. A”, “Mr. B” and “Mr. C” are holding appointment as an Auditor in 4, 6 and 10 Companies respectively.

(i) Provide the maximum number of Audits remaining in the name of “ABC & Co.”

(ii) Provide the maximum number of Audits remaining in the name of individual partner i.e. Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C.

(iii) Can ABC & Co. accept the appointment as an auditor in 60 private companies having paid- up share capital less than ₹ 100 crore, 2 small companies and 1 dormant company?

(iv) Would your answer be different, if out of those 60 private companies, 45 companies are having paid-up share capital of ₹ 110 crore each?

Solution

Fact of the Case: In the instant case, Mr. A is holding appointment in 4 companies, whereas Mr. B is having appointment in 6 Companies and Mr. C is having appointment in 10 Companies. In aggregate all three partners are having 20 audits.

Provisions and Explanations: Section 141(3)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013 states that the following persons shall not be eligible for appointment as an auditor of a company i.e. a person who is in full time employment elsewhere; or a person, or a partner of a firm holding appointment as its auditor, if such person, or partner is at the date of such appointment, or reappointment holding appointment as auditor of more than twenty companies other than one person companies, dormant companies, small companies and private companies having paid-up share capital less than ₹ 100 crore.

As per section 141(3)(g), this limit of 20 company audits is per person. In the case of an audit firm having 3 partners, the overall ceiling will be 3 × 20 = 60 company audits. Sometimes, a chartered accountant is a partner in a number of auditing firms. In such a case, all the firms in which he is partner or proprietor will be together entitled to 20 company audits on his account.

Conclusion:

(i) Therefore, ABC & Co. can hold appointment as an auditor of 40 more companies:

Total Number of Audits available to the Firm Number of Audits already taken by all the partners 20*3 = 60
In their individual capacity 4+6+10 = 20
Remaining number of Audits available to the Firm = 40

(ii) With reference to above provisions an auditor can hold more appointment as auditor = ceiling limit as per section 141(3)(g)- already holding appointments as an auditor. Hence (1)Mr. A can hold: 20 – 4 = 16 more audits. (2) Mr. B can hold 20-6 = 14 more audits and (3) Mr. C can hold 20-10 = 10 more audits.

(iii) In view of above discussed provisions, ABC & Co. can hold appointment as an auditor in all the 60 private companies having paid-up share capital less than ₹ 100 crore, 2 small companies and 1 dormant company as these are excluded from the ceiling limit of company audits given under section 141(3)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013.

(iv) As per fact of the case, ABC & Co. is already having 20 company audits and they can also accept 40 more company audits. In addition they can also conduct the audit of one person companies, small companies, dormant companies and private companies having paid up share capital less than ₹ 100 crores. In the given case, out of the 60 private companies, ABC & Co. is offered 45 companies having paid-up share capital of ₹ 110 crore each.

Therefore, ABC & Co. can also accept the appointment as an auditor for 2 small companies, 1 dormant company, 15 private companies having paid-up share capital less than ₹ 100 crore and 40 private companies having paid-up share capital of ₹ 110 crore each in addition to above 20 company audits already holding.


Question 11

The company has dispensed with the practice of taking inventory of their inventories at the year-end as in their opinion the exercise is redundant, time consuming and intrusion to normal functioning of the operations. Explain reporting requirement under CARO, 2016.

Solution

Reporting for Physical Verification of Inventory: Clause (ii) of Para 3 of CARO, 2016, requires the auditor to report whether physical verification of inventory has been conducted at reasonable intervals by the management and whether any material discrepancies were noticed and if so, whether they have been properly dealt with in the books of account.

The physical verification of inventory is the responsibility of the management of the company which should verify all material items at least once in a year and more often in appropriate cases.

In the given case, the above requirement of physical verification of inventory by the management has not been taken place and therefore the auditor should point out the same under CARO, 2016. He may consider the impact on financial statement and report accordingly.


Question 12

An auditor purchased goods worth ₹ 501,500 on credit from a company being audited by him. The company allowed him one month’s credit, which it normally allowed to all known customers. Comment.

Solution

Purchase of Goods on Credit by the Auditor: Section 141(3)(d)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013 specifies that a person shall be disqualified to act as an auditor if he is indebted to the company for an amount exceeding five lakh rupees.

Where an auditor purchases goods or services from a company audited by him on credit, he is definitely indebted to the company and if the amount outstanding exceeds rupees five lakh, he is disqualified for appointment as an auditor of the company.

It will not make any difference if the company allows him the same period of credit as it allows to other customers on the normal terms and conditions of the business. The auditor cannot argue that he is enjoying only the normal credit period allowed to other customers. In fact, in such a case he has become indebted to the company and consequently he has deemed to have vacated his office.


Question 13

Ram and Hanuman Associates, Chartered Accountants in practice have been appointed as Statutory Auditor of Krishna Ltd. for the accounting year 2017-2018. Mr. Hanuman holds 100 equity shares of Shiva Ltd., a subsidiary company of Krishna Ltd. Comment.

Solution

Auditor Holding Securities of a Company: As per sub-section (3)(d)(i) of Section 141 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 10 of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rule, 2014, a person shall not be eligible for appointment as an auditor of a company, who, or his relative or partner is holding any security of or interest in the company or its subsidiary, or of its holding or associate company or a subsidiary of such holding company. However, the relative may hold security or interest in the company of face value not exceeding ₹ 1 lakh.

Also, as per sub-section 4 of Section 141 of the Companies Act, 2013, where a person appointed as an auditor of a company incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (3) after his appointment, he shall vacate his office as such auditor and such vacation shall be deemed to be a casual vacancy in the office of the auditor.

In the present case, Mr. Hanuman, Chartered Accountant, a partner of M/s Ram and Hanuman Associates, holds 100 equity shares of Shiva Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Krishna Ltd. Therefore, the firm, M/s Ram and Hanuman Associates would be disqualified to be appointed as statutory auditor of Krishna Ltd., which is the holding company of Shiva Ltd., because one of the partners Mr. Hanuman is holding equity shares of its subsidiary.


Question 14

Managing Director of PQR Ltd. himself wants to appoint Shri Ganpati, a practicing Chartered Accountant, as first auditor of the company. Comment on the proposed action of the Managing Director.

Solution

Appointment of First Auditor of Company: Section 139(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 lays down that the first auditor or auditors of a company shall be appointed by the Board of directors within 30 days from the date of registration of the company.

In the instant case, the appointment of Shri Ganapati, a practicing Chartered Accountant as first auditors by the Managing Director of PQR Ltd. by himself is in violation of Section 139(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which authorizes the Board of Directors to appoint the first auditor of the company within 30 days of registration of the company.

In view of the above, the Managing Director of PQR Ltd. should be advised not to appoint the first auditor of the company.


Question 15

Under what circumstances the retiring Auditor cannot be reappointed?

Solution

Circumstances where Retiring Auditor Cannot be Reappointed: In the following circumstances, the retiring auditor cannot be reappointed-

(i) A specific resolution has not been passed to reappoint the retiring auditor.

(ii) The auditor proposed to be reappointed does not possess the qualification prescribed under section 141 of the Companies Act, 2013.

(iii) The proposed auditor suffers from the disqualifications under section 141(3), 141(4) and 144 of the Companies Act, 2013.

(iv) He has given to the company notice in writing of his unwillingness to be reappointed.

(v) A resolution has been passed in AGM appointing somebody else or providing expressly that the retiring auditor shall not be reappointed.

(vi) A written certificate has not been obtained from the proposed auditor to the effect that the appointment or reappointment, if made, will be in accordance within the limits specified under section 141(3)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013.


Question 16

ABC Ltd is a company incorporated in India. It has branches within and outside India. Explain who can be appointed as an auditor of these branches within and outside India. Also explain to whom branch auditor is required to report.

Solution

Sub-section (8) of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013, prescribes the duties and powers of the company’s auditor with reference to the audit of the branch and the branch auditor. Where a company has a branch office, the accounts of that office shall be audited either by the auditor appointed for the company (herein referred to as the company’s auditor) under this Act or by any other person qualified for appointment as an auditor of the company under this Act and appointed as such under section 139, or where the branch office is situated in a country outside India, the accounts of the branch office shall be audited either by the company’s auditor or by an accountant or by any other person duly qualified to act as an auditor of the accounts of the branch office in accordance with the laws of that country and the duties and powers of the company’ s auditor with reference to the audit of the branch and the branch auditor, if any, shall be such as may be prescribed:

It may be noted that the branch auditor shall prepare a report on the accounts of the branch examined by him and send it to the auditor of the company who shall deal with it in his report in such manner as he considers necessary.

Further as per rule 12 of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014, the branch auditor shall submit his report to the company’s auditor and reporting of fraud by the auditor shall also extend to such branch auditor to the extent it relates to the concerned branch.


Question 17

Before the commencement of the audit, the joint auditors should discuss and develop a joint audit plan. In developing the joint audit plan, the joint auditors should identify division of audit areas and common audit areas. Explain stating the other relevant considerations in this regard.

Solution

Before the commencement of the audit, the joint auditors should discuss and develop a joint audit plan. In developing the joint audit plan, the joint auditors should:

(a) identify division of audit areas and common audit areas;

(b) ascertain the reporting objectives of the engagement;

(c) consider and communicate among all joint auditors the factors that are significant

(d) in directing the engagement team’s efforts;

(e) consider the results of preliminary engagement activities, or similar engagements performed earlier.

(f) ascertain the nature, timing and extent of resources necessary to accomplish the engagement.


Question 18

“CA. NM who is rendering management consultancy service to LA Ltd. wants to accept offer letter for appointment as an auditor of the LA Ltd. for the next financial year.” Discuss with reference to the provision of the Companies Act, 2013.

Solution

Section 141(3)(i) of the Companies Act, 2013 disqualifies a person for appointment as an auditor of a company who is engaged as on the date of appointment in management consultancy service as provided in section 144. Section 144 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes certain services not to be rendered by the auditor which are as under:

(i) Accounting and book keeping services

(ii) Internal audit.

(iii) Design and implementation of any financially information system.

(iv) Actuarial services

(v) Investment advisory services.

(vi) Investment banking services.

(vii) Rendering of outsourced financial services

(viii) Management services and

(ix) Any other kind of services as may be prescribed

Therefore, CA. NM is advised not to accept the assignment of auditing as the management consultancy service is specifically notified in the list of services not to be rendered by him as per section 141(3)(i) read with section 144 of the Companies Act, 2013.


Question 19

Why Central Government permission is required, when the auditors are to be removed before expiry of their term, but the same is not needed when the auditors are changed after expiry of their term?

Solution

Permission of Central Government for Removal of Auditor Under Section 140(1) of the Companies Act, 2013: Removal of auditor before expiry of his term i.e. before he has submitted his report is a serious matter and may adversely affect his independence.

Further, in case of conflict of interest the shareholders may remove the auditors in their own interest.

Therefore, law has provided this safeguard so that central government may know the reasons for such an action and if not satisfied, may not accord approval.

On the other hand if auditor has completed his term i.e. has submitted his report and thereafter he is not re-appointed then the matter is not serious enough for central government to call for its intervention.

In view of the above, the permission of the Central Government is required when auditors are removed before expiry of their term and the same is not needed when they are not re-appointed after expiry of their term.


Question 20

The practice of appointing Chartered Accountants as joint auditors is quite widespread in big companies and corporations. Explain stating the advantages of the joint audit.

Solution

Joint Audit: The practice of appointing Chartered Accountants as joint auditors is quite widespread in big companies and corporations. Joint audit basically implies pooling together the resources and expertise of more than one firm of auditors to render an expert job in a given time period which may be difficult to accomplish acting individually. It essentially involves sharing of the total work. This is by itself a great advantage.

In specific terms the advantages that flow may be the following:

(i) Sharing of expertise.

(ii) Advantage of mutual consultation.

(iii) Lower workload.

(iv) Better quality of performance.

(v) Improved service to the client.

(vi) Displacement of the auditor of the company taken over in a takeover often obviated.

(vii) In respect of multi-national companies, the work can be spread using the expertise of the local firms which are in a better position to deal with detailed work and the local laws and regulations.

(viii) Lower staff development costs.

(ix) Lower costs to carry out the work.

(x) A sense of healthy competition towards a better performance.


Question 21

According to Companies Act, 2013, the person appointed as an auditor of the company shall sign the auditor’s report in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Explain clearly the relevant provisions relating to signing of report.

Solution

Duty to Sign the Audit Report: As per section 145 of the Companies Act, 2013, the person appointed as an auditor of the company shall sign the auditor’s report or sign or certify any other document of the company, in accordance with the provisions of section 141(2).

Section 141(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 states that where a firm including a limited liability partnership is appointed as an auditor of a company, only the partners who are chartered accountants shall be authorised to act and sign on behalf of the firm.

The qualifications, observations or comments on financial transactions or matters, which have any adverse effect on the functioning of the company mentioned in the auditor’s report shall be read before the company in general meeting.


Question 22

The auditor shall make a report to the members of the company on the accounts examined by him. Explain with reference to relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

Solution

Right to report to the members of the company on the accounts examined by him – The auditor shall make a report to the members of the company on the accounts examined by him and on every financial statements which are required by or under this Act to be laid before the company in general meeting and the report shall after taking into account the provisions of this Act, the accounting and auditing standards and matters which are required to be included in the audit report under the provisions of this Act or any rules made there under or under any order made under this section and to the best of his information and knowledge, the said accounts, financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the company’ s affairs as at the end of its financial year and profit or loss and cash flow for the year and such other matters as may be prescribed.


Question 23

“The role of audit committee in corporate governance is not limited to making recommendation for appointment of auditors only.” Discuss.

Solution

Audit committee performs wide functions. The recommendation for appointment of auditors is only one of the several functions performed by audit committee. Under section 177 of companies Act, 2013, audit committee is responsible for following actions :-

(i) the recommendation for appointment, remuneration and terms of appointment of auditors of the company;]

(ii) review and monitor the auditor’s independence and performance, and effectiveness of audit process;

(iii) examination of the financial statement and the auditors’ report thereon;

(iv) approval or any subsequent modification of transactions of the company with related parties;

(v) scrutiny of inter-corporate loans and investments;

(vi) valuation of undertakings or assets of the company, wherever it is necessary;

(vii) evaluation of internal financial controls and risk management systems;

(viii) monitoring the end use of funds raised through public offers and related matters.

Hence, audit committee oversees range of matters including those related to making recommendation for appointment of auditors etc.


Question 24

The auditor has to make inquires on certain matters under section 143(1) ofCompanies Act, 2013. Discuss these matters.

Solution

The auditor has to make inquires on following matters under section 143(1) of Companies Act, 2013:-

(a) whether loans and advances made by the company on the basis of security have been properly secured and whether the terms on which they have been made are prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members;

(b) whether transactions of the company which are represented merely by book entries are prejudicial to the interests of the company;

(c) where the company not being an investment company or a banking company, whether so much of the assets of the company as consist of shares, debentures and other securities have been sold at a price less than that at which they were purchased by the company;

(d) whether loans and advances made by the company have been shown as deposits;

(e) whether personal expenses have been charged to revenue account;

(f) where it is stated in the books and documents of the company that any shares have been allotted for cash, whether cash has actually been received in respect of such allotment, and if no cash has actually been so received, whether the position as stated in the account books and the balance sheet is correct, regular and not misleading.


Question 25

Discuss the purpose of cost audit. What are the legal provisions regarding applicability of cost audit?

Solution

The purpose of cost audit is to verify the cost of manufacture or production of any article, on the basis of accounts as regards utilisation of material or labour or other items of costs, maintained by the company.

Rule 4 of the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 states the provisions related to cost audit are applicable depending on the turnover of the company as follows-

(i) Classes of companies specified under item (A) “Regulated Sectors” are required to get its cost records audited if the overall annual turnover of the company from all its products and services during the immediately preceding financial year is ₹ 50 crore or more and the aggregate turnover of the individual product(s) or service(s) for which cost records are required to be maintained under rule 3 is ₹ 25 crore or more.

(ii) Classes of companies specified under item (B) “Non-Regulated Sectors” are required to get its cost records audited if the overall annual turnover of the company from all its products and services during the immediately preceding financial year is ₹ 100 crore or more and the aggregate turnover of the individual product(s) or service(s) for which cost records are required to be maintained under rule 3 is ₹ 35 crore or more.

However, the requirement for cost audit does not apply to the following companies:-

(i) whose revenue from exports, in foreign exchange, exceeds seventy five per cent of its total revenue; or

(ii) Which is operating from a special economic Zone.

(iii) which is engaged in generation of electricity for captive consumption through Captive Generating Plant.


Boost Your CA Intermediate Preparation

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Boost Your CA Intermediate Preparation