Ad Free CAclubindia and Daily Updates on your Mobile. Subscribe Now!

Does any one have these circulars

CA Sameer Suman (Job) (112 Points)

12 October 2012

Does any one have these DCA circulars

Circular No. 7/76 dated 8-4-1976

circular No. 8/6/83-IGC dated 7-6-1984

please revert soon.

Thanks in advance

Reply
Follow
Share

4 Replies

deepali agarwal (Company Secretary) (1289 Points)
Replied 12 October 2012

Following attachment best describes it...

Attached File : 446320 1070252 18076310709 ipdc.pdf downloaded: 734 times

Upgrade to CAclubindia Pro. Subscribe Now!

P C Agrawal (Registered independent director Past Chairman of Aurangabad Chapter of ICSI Practicing Company Secretary at Aurangabad) (8229 Points)
Replied 14 October 2012

Government companies - Application of sections 224 to 233 ‑ Appointment of statutory auditors by Company Law Board ‑ Fixation of audit fees ‑ Guidelines for

In case of Government companies, the statutory auditors are appointed by the Company Law Board in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in terms of section 619. So far as their remuneration is concerned it is solely decided and fixed by the Company Law Board on the basis of the recommendations made by the board of directors of the company and in the light of factual merits of each case. It has, however, been observed that a number of representations are received every year from the auditors generally complaining about the inadequacy of the remuneration fixed by the Company Law Board. These representations, by and large, point to the need for fixing some norms, which may be followed uniformly by the Government companies while sending their recommendation to us so as to avoid discrimination and disparity in making a proper assessment of a reasonable remuneration. It has, therefore, been considered necessary to issue guidelines for Government companies regarding fixation of director’s remuneration, a copy* of which is enclosed for information and necessary action in determining the remuneration reasonably in accordance with the norms specified therein and recommending the same to this Board for consideration as and when the occasion arises.

Circular : No. 7/76[1/1/76‑CL‑V and 8/3/75‑IGC], dated 8‑4‑1976.

ANNEXURE ‑ GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNMENT COMPANIES REGARDING FIXATION OF AUDITORS’ REMUNERATION

While recommending the remuneration of the auditors, the board of directors of the company concerned should take a comparative view of the affairs of the company, so as to assess whether there has been any significant growth in its activities since the preceding year. Where, however, the same fee has been continued to be paid to the auditors during the past few years, the comparative view of its activities may be taken into account since the period when the fee was last fixed or revised.

The following items of income, expenditure and other aspects mentioned below should, inter alia, be taken into account for determining the extent of growth of the activities of a company:

1. Production/Sales in terms of quantity and money value.

2. Other substantive income.

3. Purchases in terms of quantity and money value.

4. Total revenue expenditure.

5. Capital employed (i.e., aggregate of paid‑up capital, reserves and surplus and long‑term liabilities, as reduced by the debit balance in “miscellaneous expenditure” and “profit and loss” account).

6. Fixed assets acquired.

7. Total investments, together with number and amount of transactions involved, where a company is engaged in promotion of industries and participates in the shares, stocks, debentures or other securities of joint stock companies or is otherwise an investment company within the meaning of proviso to sub‑section (1) of section 372.

8. Total loans and advances made, together with number and amount of transactions involved, where a company is engaged in rendering financial assistance to various types of industries or dealing in hire‑purchase business.

9. Total number of vouchers (cash and journal) both with respect to accounts maintained at head office and at branches, units, project sites, etc.

10. Whether the company has decentralised the system of maintaining the accounts, if so, whether it is necessary for the auditors to visit those places for auditing the accounts if maintained there.

11. Time spent by the auditors and their staff in terms of man‑hours (partner and assistant‑wise) in completing the audit.

12. Whether internal audit system is in vogue; if so, this fact may be taken into account and the quantum of remuneration should be comparatively less than in a case where such a system does not exist.

13. Whether the auditors of the company are required to submit a supplementary report to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in terms of section 619 ? As this results in additional work for the auditors, this may also be taken into account while recommending their remuneration.

The above guidelines would normally apply to cases where the recommendation of the board of directors is given after the close of the financial year for which the fee is to be fixed by the Company Law Board. However, in all these cases where a fee is to be fixed for current financial year which has not yet ended, the company concerned should assess the work-load of the auditors on the basis of volume of activities expected during that year, in the same manner as indicated above, and then suggest the quantum of fee that may be sanctioned by the Company Law Board.

Where a company has more than one unit/ branch/project site and the books of account, if maintained there are also to be audited, the remuneration of the statutory auditors/branch auditors should be so recommended by the board of directors that the element of TA/DA and other incidental out‑of‑pocket expenses, where necessary, is kept separate from the substantive remuneration. In other words, the remuneration will be fixed on “substantive basis”. The TA/DA and other out‑of‑pocket expenses may be paid as mutually agreed between the auditors and the company. No such expenses should, however, be allowed in case audit is conducted by a local firm of auditors.

As for the remuneration for the work required to be done under any other statute (other than under the Companies Act), the same may be paid to the auditors under the head “Charges for other services” as mutually agreed to between them and the company.

In case of first year audit, the remuneration of the auditors should be based on the minimum of the expected/ budgeted activities of the company which may inter alia include the acquisition of block assets so that the excessive fee is not paid. Similar practice may be followed in a case where project is still in progress and the production has not yet started, or where a new company has been formed to take over a running business.

It should, however, be borne in mind by the company that the remuneration proposed by them is commensurate to the work done or to be done by the auditors and it should be ensured that the increase in the fee, if any, recommended by them, is reasonably and fully justified.

P C Agrawal (Registered independent director Past Chairman of Aurangabad Chapter of ICSI Practicing Company Secretary at Aurangabad) (8229 Points)
Replied 14 October 2012

SECTIONS 619, 619B & 620

Government Companies

SECTION 619— Application of sections 224 to 233

Government companies - Application of sections 224 to 233 ‑ Appointment of statutory auditors by Company Law Board ‑ Fixation of audit fees ‑ Guidelines for

The Government had circulated guidelines in 1976 vide Circular No. 7/76, dated 8‑4‑1976 [printed here as Clarification 1] regarding fixation of audit fees for statutory auditors, for Government companies appointed under section 619(2).

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has represented that there has been a phenomenal increase in the cost of service relating to audit particularly in respect of salaries paid to audit staff, stationery costs and other miscellaneous costs on account of general rise in prices due to inflationary pressures but there has not been corresponding increase in the audit fee of auditors due to rise in the cost of services.

It has, therefore, been considered necessary that the board of directors of Government companies/deemed Government companies while recommending fixation/re‑fixation of audit fee for their statutory auditors in accordance with the, norms, as specified in the circular mentioned above should also take into account the effect of rising cost due to inflation/rise in prices as additional factors while suggesting the quantum of audit fee to be fixed for such auditors.

Circular : No. 8/6/83‑IGC, dated 7‑6‑1984.