Auditguru Auditguru Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ) Auditguru Auditguru
 Meet Us Here
Atul Goyal asked 1 year ago

Sir,
Please refer the answer in the given link.( https://auditguru.in/question/cno-713-relating-to-clause-11-part-1-first-schedule/ )
I need a little more clarity regarding the answer posted from your side.
In the Question it is given Raj is doing Trading activity . 
Scenario 1 :  He is doing it in personal capacity. 
    Then in such case why he will be needed any sort of permission. as the clause 11 is governing the work done in professional capacity. 
Scenario 2: He is doing it in professional capacity.
  In such case since at the point of time the list of specific activities is  exhaustive in nature and it doesn’t include trading activity, implies CAIP can’t do such activity at all hence the question of taking  permission is not relevant in the case. 
and the answer to the question shall , accordingly, state that CA Raj can’t perform the activity at all instead of stating that permission is required for doing the trading activity.
 
 

2 Answers
RaviRavi Staff answered 1 year ago

Clause 11 governs any business or occupation conducted by CA in practice.
 
Now whether trading leads to business or occupation, was the question which icai has clarified.
 
So it is clear that clause 11 is relevant here.

RaviRavi Staff answered 1 year ago

As on today, trading in equity & its derivative at individual level is not considered as business or occupation. so it is allowed but trading in commodities and derivatives is not allowed.
so in present case he is guilt of professional misconduct.
yes i agree with you that if it is not in list then it should be directly held as guilty.
but we have to see what icai has done.

so we can explain it is not in list so it is professional misconduct. further he could have avoided professional misconduct, if he would have got prior permission from executive committee.

Call Back Request