Wrong solution by shri gurukripa

Hi,

In q1 on ethics, the assistant may carry out the work but ultimately it is the partnet who was on a tour must sign it. Since he was not available even to supervise and review the work performed by his assistant, he need not have accepted the assignment as a prudent measure. Hence he will be held guilty.

In q4 - Per se, the ca will not be held guilty since he has not solicited himself to his clients but has just made an application to include his name in the panel of auditors. This is allowed as per schedule - i do not recollect the no. But the question says that a cv was enclosed with the application. That raises a doubt that the ca will be held guilty.

In q4 ca would b held guilty but d reason which have been given by u is not correct.. Ca can write to organisation to have his name in panel "if he already knows that such panel exists"... And in ques it was clearly mention dat ca writes to organiation to have his name in panel if so panel exists.. N for ques1 check out surbhi bansal book clause 12 of schedule 1 part 1...

Ya. I went through. U were right.

But dude it's been a shocker that how Shri gurukripa can give wrong answer in auditing... Being a largest seller of auditing book v don't expect such a huge mistake from there side....

Ya...But along with their ans, they have given ref to their page no.s which have explanations. I am just trying to get access to that. But with ref to my case, will i atleast not be able to pick up 2 marks for each of those ans since all of them are slight modifications of the clauses. So i have stated the right clause but wrongly concluded?
 

Unexpected ..

@ Rahul.. What unexpected...??? @ ashwin... Can't say abt ur case depends on examiner....

Solution of FM given by NAHATA ACADEMY of Indore is also wrong. Pls dont get panicked by that solution. If you want check the question of Working Capital.Mr Tarun Mahajan there has given a very hay Wye solution. Just completely wrong

Is it true...?

i agree with you