Govt wants early warning system on shell companies

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0
Qualified accounts can be flagged on the ministry’s portal, thereby, helping regulators to keep a check on suspicious entities

The ministry of corporate affairs (MCA) says work has begun for an “early warning system” regarding shell companies.

 

The term is used to refer to a company without active business operations or much of assets. This by itself isn’t illegitimate but they could be used as a manoeuvre for financial operations of a suspect or illegitimate nature.

 

Currently, there is no way to check shell companies systemically, an official said. Chartered accountants (CAs) do come out with qualified accounts of such companies but these come in a random way on the ministry’s MCA21 portal. Qualified accounts refer to bits of information about which CAs have doubts or disagreement with the audited entity’s management.

 

After the hoped-for early warning system comes, qualified accounts would be flagged on the ministry’s portal, helping it and other regulators to check on such entities. “We are yet to work out the nitty gritty of this system but are on the job,” another official said.

graphHe said this would do away with the current system of random inspections to identify such companies. The portal will have filings by CAs in such a way that regulators will be alerted, he said.

 

Earlier, minister of state for corporate affairs P P Chaudhary had said the government would try to use the information technology tool of artificial intelligence in this regard.

 

CAs told Business Standard that an early warning system by itself wouldn’t change things by much. There should also be stringent norms to make auditors more independent. One of them said it is a company’s promoters who appoint the auditor, which means the latter does not retain the independence to openly report facts. So, a CA’s appointment would need to move away from promoters.

 

The ministry had recently issued rules to limit the number of subsidiaries a company may have — no more than two layers. This will apply prospectively but existing companies have to disclose details of their entire list of subsidiaries to the registrar of companies within 150 days. Banks and insurance companies are excluded from this rule.

 

With no limit on the number of subsidiaries, regulators found it difficult to track illicit transactions.

 

Source: Business Standard

Auditors come under lens amid crackdown on shell companies

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, Income Tax,e-Filing- Individuals, Firms, Companies | 0

A multi-agency clampdown has begun on shell companies to tackle the black money menace wherein the role of auditors has come under the scanner for alleged connivance in facilitating illegal transactions.

The auditors’ role is also being looked into for not raising the red flag as several cases have come to the fore, including at listed companies, for alleged mismatch in financial statements, sharp erosion in net worth, siphoning off funds to group and promoter entities, sources said.

Stepping up the vigil, the corporate affairs ministry as well as Sebi and other regulatory authorities are keeping a close tab on activities carried out by shell companies.

Sources said regulatory agencies are examining the role of auditors to ascertain whether they were also involved in suspected illegal activities.

The ministry as well as Sebi are closely looking at the functioning of auditors in various companies, especially those that have not been carrying out business for long. After a detailed analysis, the authorities would decide on the next course of action, sources added.

Auditors, who have greater responsibilities under the Companies Act, 2013, are required to ensure that financial statements of a company are proper and can red flag dubious transactions.

As part of larger efforts to fight illicit fund flows and tax evasion, the ministry has already struck off the names of over two lakh companies from the records and further action is expected.

Besides, Sebi has taken against 331 listed entities that are suspected shell companies. While the watchdog had imposed strict trading restrictions on these scrips, curbs have been eased in some cases after the companies went on appeal against Sebi’s move.

On Tuesday, the government said more than 1.06 lakh directors would be disqualified for their association with shell companies.

The ministry, which is implementing the companies law, has also identified professionals, chartered accountants, company secretaries and cost accountants associated with the defaulting companies.

Besides, such people “involved in illegal activities have been identified in certain cases and the action by professional institutes such as ICAI, ICSI and ICoAI is also being monitored”, an official release said on Tuesday.

Separately, authorities are looking at the possibility of having stricter scrutiny of global auditing firms to make them more accountable with such auditors coming under the lens in various corporate misdoings.

A big area of concern pertains to the big guns seeking to wash off their hands whenever their names crop up in any accounting wrong-doing while their delaying tactics in the name of jurisdiction have also been noticed, an official had said earlier.

While the existing legal framework provides for stringent provisions for auditing activities, there is no specific system in place when it comes to overseas audit firms.

While discussions on having tighter regulations for foreign audit firms are going on, the ministry is already examining the recommendations of the 3-member expert panel on various issues related to audit firms amid concerns over certain practices circumventing regulations.

 The expert panel, headed by Teri Chairman Ashok Chawla, had submitted its report in March this year.
Source: Times of India

Banks’ auditors under lens: RBI seeks explanation on differences in write-downs

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0
According to RBI data, PSU banks in FY17 have written off Rs 81,683 crore against Rs 2.49 lakh crore in the past five years.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has questioned scores of auditors at 27 public sector banks on the process and logic they had used to compute and report write-downs at the lenders, two people close to the development told ET.

The RBI has sought written explanation on differences in the write-down assessments by its own inspectors and those certified by the auditors. A write-down is a reduction in the estimated and nominal value of an asset, and is charged off as a loss to the profit and loss account for the relevant period. In some cases, the RBI has also questioned the provisioning methodology and non-performing asset (NPA) figures arrived at by the auditors at a few public sector banks, sources told ET.

The banking regulator is examining whether auditors at these state-run lenders followed RBI guidelines on write-downs, provisioning and NPAs. “This is part of RBI’s annual assessment. Auditors will have to explain how they provisioned for NPA and how they calculated write-downs,” said a person aware of the matter.

The write-downs, NPA and provisioning figures arrived at by the auditors and RBI inspectors differ by up to 10%.

WRITE-DOWNS & PROVISIONING
According to RBI data, PSU banks in FY17 have written off Rs 81,683 crore against Rs 2.49 lakh crore in the past five years. In a few cases, the audit reports of some of these lenders do not reflect these write-downs, said one of the persons cited above. Most banks do not separately report write-downs in their accounts, combining them often with quarterly provisioning.

Most Indian public sector banks use more than one auditor due to the enormous size of their balance sheets. Most auditors are mid-to-small Indian firms that audit several branches. The 27 public sector banks collectively employ 115 auditors, according to data analysed by the ET Intelligence Group.

According to the people in the know, auditors at State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, Allahabad Bank and Bank of India (BoI) were sent the show-cause notices about two weeks ago.

ET’s detailed email queries to the regulator and the affected lenders – SBI, PNB, BoB, IDBI, Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank, BoI, Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) and Allahabad Bank – did not elicit any response.

REGULATOR HAS PRIVILEGED ACCESS’
According to a major bank’s auditor who did not wish to be identified, the differences are not unexpected. “The RBI has access to information an auditor may not. Like, if a loan in bank X has gone toxic, the auditor of bank Y may not know, but the RBI would,” he said. He added that there is a time lapse between auditors preparing an account and the RBI conducting inspections. “What you must look at is the impact on the P&L of a bank due to divergence. In most cases, that is not much,” he said.

To be sure, there may have been ‘technical’ errors in interpreting the writedown rules, resulting in the differences. “There is a direct impact of the new accounting standards on the way write-downs are arrived at,” said a senior executive at a top audit firm. “Under the old accounting system, the rules around write-downs were not as precise, and there is a possibility that some auditors may have ignored this.”

Source: Economic Times

MEFICAI Empanelment/ Bank Branch Auditors Panel for FY 2016-17

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs | 0

Multipurpose Empanelment Form of ICAI (MEF-ICAI) is an online application, which is meant for allotment of Bank/ Branch Audits to the ICAI Members/ CA Firms.

a) Final Bank Branch Auditors Panel for the FY 2016-17

The ICAI has prepared the “Final Bank Branch Auditors’ Panel of Chartered Accountants/ CA Firms (MEF) for the Financial Year 2016-17” and the same is hosted at MEFICAI website till 20 Jan. 2017. Thereafter the final panel is being sent to RBI.

To view your category and remarks thereof, if any, please click on the relevant interval, as below:

Final Panel

MEF00001-05000

MEF05001-10000 

MEF10001-15000 

MEF15001-20000 

MEF20001-25000 

MEF25001-30000 

MEF30001-35000 

MEF35001-40000

MEF40001-45000 

MEF45001-50000 

MEF50001-55000 

MEF55001-60000

MEF60001-73666

For any other query/ issue, please contact  ICAI’s PDC Secretariat on 011-30110444. Also, please visit MEFICAI website for updated/ official version of Draft/ Final Panel.

b) MEF-ICAI Multipurpose Empanelment Form 2016-17

MEF 2016-17 for empanelment of Bank Branch Auditors for FY 2016-17 is hosted at MEFICAI website. MEF 2016-17 is divided into three parts, i.e. i) Part A: For Bank Branch Auditor’s panel ; ii) Part B: For Additional information for Multipurpose Empanelment; and iii) Part C: For panel of Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks.

In line with ICAI Notification dt. 7 April, entities are being advised to avail the Multipurpose Empanelment data available with ICAI for allotting various assignments in response to tenders, including for Cooperative Societies. Accordingly PART B & PART C has been included in MEF 2016-17.

c) Other related items

View or Download PDF Copy:

 RBI Approved Audit Firms for appointment as CSA in Banks for 2015-16

 RBI Norms on Eligibility, Empanelment, Appointment of Branch Auditors 2015-16

 Revised MEFICAI Norms for Firm Category for Allocation of Bank Branch Audit

 RBI Norms for Appointment of Bank CSA from 2016-17 onwards

New Year GIFT for MNC law and audit firms

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate Updates, Cross Border Transactions, M&As, Joint Ventures, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

Foreign law and accountancy firms now have a chance to operate in India on their own. On January 3, the ministry of commerce and industry amended a rule allowing such foreign firms to set up offices and advise clients from SEZs. The move will initially benefit Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT).

Current regulations so far do not permit multinational law firms to operate in the country. Indian law and accountancy firms were also not allowed to operate from any of the SEZs. That rule has now been amended which would benefit financial centres.

The notification, dated January 6 but issued on January 3, by the department of commerce allows foreign law and accountancy firms to be established in SEZs. The earlier version of the rule, prior to the amendment, had excluded legal services and accounting.

“This will be the big enabler for the legal and accounting firms to expand their services in multi-services SEZ with IFSC (International Finance Service Centre) and thereby export their services to various global players,” said Nitin Potdar, partner, J Sagar, a law firm. As of now, only GIFT is a multi-services SEZ with an IFSC in India.

“Until now, no foreign law firm could operate in India and not even Indian firms were allowed to provide their services in any of the SEZs. The new amendment allows not only Indian law or accountancy firms to set up a base in GIFT, but even multinationals can directly advise upon international disputes or arbitration by setting up a base there,” Dipesh Shah, head, IFSC at GIFT, told ET.

While many foreign professional services firms such as Deloitte, PwC, KPMG and EY are present in India, they cannot directly operate as auditors and require an Indian affiliate. This amendment does away with that requirement at least in the case of GIFT.

Many Indian law firms have been opposing the entry of multinational law firms in India for some time. Going ahead, many multinationals could set up base in India but they will only be able to advise on cross-border transactions or disputes. Some are also looking to quickly take advantage of this and set up base in GIFT.

“Allowing law firms in GIFT for arbitration or other work would work as a catalyst for economic activities in the country. We ourselves are in discussions to set up an office in GIFT,” said Nishith Desai, founder of law firm Nishith Desai Associates.

But the amendment does not permit foreign law firms to advise Indian clients on local businesses and regulations. Their advice and help would be strictly restricted to arbitrations fought in GIFT, international mergers and acquisitions, international taxation or any other advice for operations outside India.

Industry experts say some foreign law firms may consider partnerships with Indian firms under the arrangement. There could also be stiff competition as both Indian and foreign firms would compete for the same clients in GIFT.

“Many law firms may set up their base in GIFT but that would take some time. And I am a firm believer that it would only lead to betterment of all law firms,” said Desai.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56529046.cms

Annual Compliance to be made by Private Limited Company in India

by | posted in: Company Incorporations, e-filing of MCA Returns, Corporate & Business Advisory Services, Corporate Updates | 0

The annual mandatory compliances which a private limited company has to  follow are listed below:

  1. Appointment of Auditor

The Statutory Auditor of the company shall be appointed for the 5 (Five) years and e-Form ADT-1 shall be filed for 5-year appointment. After that, in every year AGM, Shareholders shall ratify the Auditor, though there is no need to file e-Form ADT-1. The first Auditor of a company shall be appointed within one month from the date of incorporation of the Company.

  1. Statutory Audit of Accounts

Every Company shall prepare its Accounts and get the same audited by a Chartered Accountant at the end of the Financial Year compulsorily. The Audit Report and the Audited Financial Statements shall be attached for the purpose of filing it with the Registrar.

  1. Filing of Annual Return (e-Form MGT-7)

Every Private Limited Company is required to file its Annual Return within 60 days of holding of Annual General Meeting. Annual Return will be for the period 1st April to 31st March. There shall be attached the list of shareholders, as annexure to the e-Form MGT-7.

Annual Return shall be digitally signed by a Director and the Company Secretary; or where there is no Company Secretary by a Company Secretary in Practice.

If paid up capital of the company is more than Rs. 10 crore or turnover is more than Rs. 50 crore, a copy of e-Form MGT-8 (Certificate by Practicing Professional) is required to be annexed in e-Form MGT-7.

  1. Filing of Financial Statements (e-Form AOC-4)

Every Private Limited Company is required to file its Balance Sheet along with statement of Profit and Loss Account and Directors’ Report in this e-Form AOC-4, within 30 days of holding of Annual General Meeting.

  1. Holding Annual General Meeting (AGM)

It is mandatory for every Private Limited Company to hold an Annual General Meeting of the shareholders in every Calendar Year. Companies are required to hold their AGM within a period of six months, from the date of closing of the Financial Year.

  1. Holding of Board Meeting

 Every Company shall hold a minimum number of FOUR meetings of its Board of Directors every year in such a manner that maximum gap between two meetings should not be more than 120 (One hundred twenty) days. Company should hold at least 1 (one) Board Meeting every quarter of calendar year.

Preparation of Directors’ Report

Directors’ Report shall be prepared with a mention of all the information required under Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013. Board’s report and any annexures thereto shall be signed by the ‘Chairperson’ authorized by the board or at least by two directors.

The above are the minimum annual compliances for a Private Limited Company in India – essentially, having minimum of 4 board meeting in a year, having an annual general meeting and having the audited accounts and filing e-Forms MGT-7, AOC-4 and ADT-1 with Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Non-Compliance

If a Company fails to comply with the rules and regulations of the Companies Act, then the Company and every officer who is in default shall be punishable with fine for the period for which default continues.

If there is delay in any filing, then additional fees is required to be paid, which keeps on increasing as the time period of non-compliance increases.

Other event-based filing with e-Form MGT-14

Besides Annual Filings, there are various other compliances to be made as and when any event takes place in the Company. The instances of such events are:

  • Change in Authorised or Paid up Capital of the Company. – e-Form SH-7
  • Allotment of new shares or transfer of shares – e-Form PAS-3
  • Amendment of Objects Clause of Memorandum of Association
  • Change of situation of the Registered Office – e-Form INC 22 / e-Form INC 23
  • Giving Loans to other Companies.
  • Giving Loans to Directors
  • Appointment of Managing or whole time Director and payment of remuneration.
  • Availing of Term Loan / Working Capital or enhancement of WC limits from banks or institutions.
  • Raising of Private Equity or going for IPO.
  • Appointment or change of the Statutory Auditors of the Company.

Different forms are required to be filed with the Registrar for all such events, with e-filing of resolutions and agreements to the Registrar in e-Form MGT-14, within specified time periods. In case, the same is not done, additional fees or penalty might be levied. Hence, it is necessary that such compliances are met on time.

Rotation of auditors and its side effects

by | posted in: Accounting Standards, Audit, Due Diligence, Corporate Updates, Economy, Business Updates, Corporate Affairs, India & International - Corporate updates | 0

The Companies Act, 2013, has introduced important audit reforms. One of the important reforms is rotation of the auditor.

Important provisions under this reform

  • All listed companies; unlisted public limited companies having paid-up share capital of Rs 10 crore or more; all private limited companies having paid-up share capital of Rs 20 crore or more, and all companies having public borrowings from financial institutions, banks or public deposit of Rs 50 crore or more are required to rotate their auditor.
  • An individual cannot continue as an auditor for more than one term of five years and an audit firm cannot continue as an auditor for more than two terms of five years
  • The cooling off period is five years.
  • The provision must be complied by April 1, 2017.

Benefits of this reform

  • This is expected to improve audit quality, resulting in improved financial reporting.
  • Would give local auditors more leverage, if implemented properly along with some other measures.

Local auditors v/s the Big Four

  • Local firms dominate the Indian audit market. However, the presence of the Big Four audit firms (Deloitte, PWC, E&Y and KPMG) cannot be ignored.
  • The Big Four are the largest professional service network in the world. They provide audit, assurance, tax, consulting, advisory, actuarial, corporate finance and advisory services. In India, they cannot provide audit services directly.
    • It is alleged that they flout rules while providing audit and assurance services. Many foreign investors put a condition that the auditor of their choice should be appointed. This helps the Big Four audit firms to grow in India.
    • There is an apprehension that many companies that get their accounts audited by local firms will appoint one of the Big Four or another large international professional service network as auditors.
    • Hence, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had notified the constitution of a three-member expert group to look into the complaint that the Big Four are circumventing rules and to find ways to help local firms.

Should the government intervene?

  • Local auditors are mostly present in tier 2 and tier 3 cities and audit 62 % of the companies listed on BSE 500.
  • They provide a variety of services to small companies. They lack aspiration to become big.
  • Therefore, it is debatable whether there is a case for government’s intervention to protect local audit firms

Way ahead and Conclusion

Chartered accountants are prohibited from soliciting professional work through advertisement or otherwise. But they can respond to tenders.

  • The practice of issuing a tender for the appointment of internal auditors is quite common among public enterprises. Such a practice is not common among private-sector companies.
  • Tendering is the right method to search for the right audit firm. This increases choice and reduces auditing cost through competition.
  • Companies should not limit their choice to the Big Four and other international firms or a few large local audit firms.
  • There are local firms that have capabilities to audit large and complex transactions. Search through tendering process would help to identify such firms.

It will be interesting to see how the new rules regarding rotation of auditors will actually impact the auditing profession.

 

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/rotation-of-auditors-and-its-side-effects-116100900736_1.html