CA Final · Integrated Business Solutions (Multidisciplinary Case Study with Strategic Management) · Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics
Case: Deccan Steels Ltd reported revenue of Rs 400 crore and profit before tax of Rs 20 crore. Its auditor sets overall materiality at 5% of profit before tax and performance materiality at 75% of overall materiality. During the audit, the company also proposed a Rs 0.9 crore capitalisation of repairs as plant, which management refuses to correct. Under Ind AS this is a clear misstatement of expense. What is the performance materiality and how should the auditor treat the Rs 0.9 crore item?
Performance materiality is Rs 0.75 crore, being 75% of overall materiality of Rs 1 crore. The Rs 0.9 crore item is not clearly trivial, so the auditor accumulates it with other misstatements, requests correction, communicates it to those charged with governance, and evaluates its effect on the opinion.
- ARs 0.75 crore; it is below overall materiality of Rs 1 crore, so it is irrelevant and need not be accumulated
- BRs 1 crore; it is a misstatement below materiality and can be ignored
- CRs 0.75 crore; the item exceeds performance materiality, so it must be accumulated and considered along with other misstatements, and communicated to those charged with governanceCorrect
- DRs 0.9 crore; the item equals performance materiality so the audit report must be adverse
Explanation
Overall materiality = 5% of 20 crore = Rs 1 crore. Performance materiality = 75% of 1 crore = Rs 0.75 crore. The Rs 0.9 crore error is not clearly trivial, so it is accumulated, uncorrected misstatements are communicated to those charged with governance, and the effect on the opinion is evaluated. Ignoring it merely because it is under overall materiality is wrong, as aggregation with others may breach materiality.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Advanced Auditing, Assurance and Professional Ethics questions
- Case: Sundaram Infra Ltd, a holding company, is audited by CA Arjun. A significant subsidiary, Sundaram Roads Pvt Ltd, is audited by another…
- Case: Ashoka Infra Ltd, a listed company, has total assets of Rs 800 crore. The auditor, CA Neha, discovers that the CFO diverted Rs 3 crore…
- Case: Lakshmi Pharma Ltd has a bank credit facility with a covenant requiring a current ratio of at least 1.25. At the year end, the current…
- Case: Sundaram Textiles Ltd has revenue of Rs 400 crore and profit before tax of Rs 20 crore. The auditor, CA Meena, sets overall materialit…
- Case: Bharat Steelworks Ltd has a debtors balance of Rs 12 crore. The auditor, CA Isha, used a statistical sample of 60 debtors out of 600 d…
- Case: Malabar Pharma Ltd, an NBFC-sponsored group entity, sold goods to a related party near the year end. Revenue of Rs 12 crore was recogn…