Quick Summary
In a recent development, CCM Dhiraj Khandelwal has addressed the concerns on X surrounding the NFRA order imposing a significant penalty on Audit Firm M/s Dhiraj Dheeraj. Amidst the controversy, Khandelwal provides a detailed clarification, shedding light on the facts and nuances of the case. Key Points from Khandelwals Statement Difference of Opinion on Audit Opinion: Khandelwal emphasizes the divergence between the adverse opinion as per NFRA and the qualified opinion as per the
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free News
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Community
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited News Access
- Profile Visitors
- Link Social Profiles
- Featured Job Posts
- Pro Badge
- Expert GST Guidance
- Unlimited Forum Replies
- Download Content in PDF
1 Year PLAN
1999
(Excl. of GST ₹359)
2 Years PLAN
3499
(Excl. of GST ₹629)
BEST VALUE
3 Years PLAN
4999
(Excl. of GST ₹899)
View all CCI PRO benefits
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience. 07941056694
FAQ :
ICAI Central Council Member Dhiraj Khandelwal has clarified the NFRA order.
The NFRA order imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore on the audit firm M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj.
There was a difference between the adverse opinion from NFRA and the qualified opinion from the auditor regarding audit findings.
The adequacy of the Expected Credit Loss (ECL) provision judgment on standard loan assets, including overdue loans, was identified as a judgmental issue.
Yes, a discrepancy was noted between a clean report from a resigned auditor in previous years and a qualified report issued later.
CAclubindia
