Auditguru Auditguru Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ) Auditguru Auditguru
 Meet Us Here
Lakshya GuptaLakshya Gupta asked 2 years ago

Hello Sir, Suppose that Mr. K takes permission of the Executive Committee for the purpose of carrying on any other business (say a Boutique shop) and Council gave that permission to him (So he is not guilty of PM under clause 11 of P-I of FS). For carrying on such business, he enters into a partnership with his friend who is a B.Com. simply. Whether he will be guilty of PM under clause 4 of P-I of FS?
Whether your answer would change, if his friend is a member of the professional bodies prescribed under Regulation 53B?
At last please clarify – Whether such other businesses have to be done in business forms other than the form of a “partnership firm” (i.e. in form of company, sole proprietor, HUF, etc.) in order to avoid Cl 4 P-I FS in respect of a CA in practice?

3 Answers
RaviRavi Staff answered 2 years ago

As per past decided case, if executive committee gives permission to conduct any business then it is understood that it has given permission to enter into partnership for doing business also. So if there is permission in clause 11 then it is understood that it is allowed under clause 4 also.
As it is allowed as it is, remaining  questions are autmatically resolved.

RaviRavi Staff answered 2 years ago

Your question on articleship training, simply disappeared.
If possible please repost it.

RaviRavi Staff answered 2 years ago

This was your question 

Lakshya Gupta has asked a question “Training of article trainee by a chartered accountant, when he is an employee under a CA / CA Firm“: 
Hello Sir, Section 2(2) defines “CA deemed to be in practice”, its Explanation says that a CA who is a salaried employee under a CA in practice / a CA firm shall be deemed to be in practice for the limited purpose of the training of articled clerks.  WHEREAS, as per clause 11, it is taken that a CA in practice who is in the employment of the CA in practice / CA firm shall not be entitled to do attest function and also not allowed to train the articles. ( as he will be deemed as Part-time COP holder) Whether it is correct to say that a CA not in practice (working under a CA/CA Firm) is ALLOWED to train articles, BUT a CA in practice (working under a CA/CA Firm) is NOT ALLOWED  to train articles????

CA who is working under another CA / CA Firm in practice will be eligible to train only 1 article because of concept of deemed to be in practice. But such person is not allowed to train article freely upto limit of 10 and also not allowed to perform attest function, so in short both are correct and above is combined interpretation.

Call Back Request