Group 17: Other Audits

30 original descriptive cases. Descriptive mix: 5 at 3 marks, 19 at 5 marks, 6 at 10 marks.

Original practice, not ICAI questions, official suggested answers or an official examiner scheme. Equivalent correct work is credited within the stated caps. Public practice availability is not full official question-bank completion.

Practice and separate test pending. The module's FCRA60days/May30 statement conflicts with the portal's FC-4 nine-month guidance and is held; threshold-dependent LLP mandatory-audit cases are held pending current MCA-rule verification.

AUD-G17-D001 · 3 marks

Sanction is not the same as a budget A municipality's supplied budget authorises Rs 40 lakh for drainage. The engineer buys a Rs 6 lakh vehicle charged to that head. There is no authorised transfer or vehicle sanction. Management says the purchase is valid because total spending of Rs 38 lakh remains below Rs 40 lakh. No State-specific legal rule is supplied. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (3 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Separate budget availability from purpose and sanction.An unspent balance does not itself authorise a vehicle purchase under the drainage provision.
1Inspect the actual competent authority and records.Read the supplied budget, sanctioned objects, procurement approval, payment vouchers and any valid transfer resolution; do not invent a universal State approval hierarchy.
1Report the supported irregularity without an automatic loss claim.The Rs 6 lakh charge lacks the stated purpose/approval evidence; seek correction and authority explanation, but possession of a vehicle is not proof of a Rs 6 lakh financial loss.

Non-credit errors

  • Below-budget spending does not cure unauthorised purpose; no universal municipal sanction rule.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.26-9.27 local-body audit

AUD-G17-D002 · 5 marks

A property register is missing from the revenue test A local body's annual property-tax demand list totals Rs 90 lakh. Cash receipts are Rs 76 lakh and authorised rebates Rs 4 lakh. Arrears are recorded at Rs 6 lakh. Forty occupied properties appear in the municipal property register but not in the demand list. Their correct tax is not supplied. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the listed demand first.Rs 90 lakh less Rs 76 lakh receipts less Rs 4 lakh rebates leaves Rs 10 lakh, not the Rs 6 lakh recorded arrears.
1Quantify the known reconciliation gap.Rs 4 lakh of demand remains unexplained between expected Rs 10 lakh and recorded Rs 6 lakh; inspect cancellations, posting and arrears records.
1Test completeness from an independent population.Trace the forty occupied properties from the property register to assessment/demand records and authorised exemptions rather than only vouching cash collections.
1Verify authority for rebates and exclusions.Inspect approved rebate/exemption evidence and rates under the actual applicable local rules; do not assume every occupied property is chargeable at an invented rate.
1Keep the two issues separate.The Rs 4 lakh reconciliation gap is known; additional omitted demand for forty properties is unquantified pending valid assessments. Report both without adding a guessed loss.

Non-credit errors

  • Do not treat the Rs 4 lakh gap as the assessed tax on forty properties or conclude theft from reconciliation alone.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.26 revenue and expenditure scope

AUD-G17-D003 · 10 marks

Completed toilets, unusable toilets and claimed grant compliance A municipality receives Rs 100 lakh under a supplied scheme for 200 public toilets at a maximum reimbursable cost of Rs 50000 each. Its utilisation certificate claims all 200 completed and functional. Work records support 180 constructed; joint inspection finds 150 functional,30 without water and 20 not built. Rs 8 lakh of the reported Rs 100 lakh expenditure lacks invoices or alternative evidence. Conditions require functional delivery and supported expenditure; they do not specify an automatic penalty formula. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Distinguish spending from delivery.Receipt/spending of Rs 100 lakh does not establish 200 functional toilets.
1Calculate construction completion.180 of 200 is 90% constructed, leaving 20 or 10% not built.
1Calculate functional outcome.150 of 200 is 75% functional, leaving 50 or 25% non-functional/not built.
1Identify built-but-unusable output.Thirty built toilets lack water; investigate commissioning and water arrangements rather than count them as functional.
1Calculate the output-based ceiling under the supplied condition.150 functional units times Rs 50000 gives Rs 75 lakh maximum for supported eligible functional units, before further evidence/condition checks.
1Calculate the supported-spend ceiling.Rs 100 lakh less Rs 8 lakh unsupported leaves at most Rs 92 lakh supported expenditure; invoices missing are not automatically fabricated.
1Do not add overlapping disallowances.The Rs 75 lakh output ceiling and Rs 92 lakh evidence ceiling overlap; Rs 8 lakh cannot simply be added to the Rs 25 lakh difference as a proven Rs 33 lakh recovery.
1Inspect reliable unit and payment evidence.Match location-wise sanctions, contracts, bills, measurements, physical findings, bank payments and acceptance records; check duplicate unit claims.
1Challenge the certificate and management explanation.The claim 200 completed/functional conflicts with both records and inspection; seek correction and document responses, including subsequent remedial work separately.
1Report compliance and performance findings within scope.Distinguish financial support, scheme eligibility, construction and usable outcomes. Determine recoverable amount under actual grant terms rather than invent an automatic penalty or audit opinion.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 33 lakh automatic recovery, no 200 functional claim and no certainty that every missing invoice is fraud.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.27 provisioning/performance; explicit exercise scheme criteria

AUD-G17-D004 · 5 marks

A promise is booked as a grant receivable An NGO books Rs 30 lakh grant income on a donor's unsigned expression of interest. A later signed agreement covers only Rs 18 lakh, conditional on an approved programme. At year-end neither programme approval nor reasonable assurance of receipt/condition compliance is available. Cash received is nil. The exercise applies ICAI'sNPO guide recognition principles. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify the recognition test.The guide requires reasonable assurance of condition compliance and receipt; an expression of interest is not enough.
1Apply the unsigned promise facts.The Rs 30 lakh entry cannot be supported merely by the donor discussion.
1Apply the signed conditional agreement separately.A signature for Rs 18 lakh does not remove the unfulfilled approval/assurance facts; do not mechanically recognise Rs 18 lakh.
1Obtain relevant evidence and correct the premature entry.Inspect agreement, approvals, correspondence and subsequent receipts without treating later events as an automatic change to year-end facts; proposed recognition is nil on the supplied evidence.
1Distinguish accrual from cash-only accounting.Deferring this unsupported grant is not a rule that all grants are recognised only on cash receipt; recognise in the period reasonable assurance is attained.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 30 lakh or Rs 18 lakh automatic receivable; no universal cash-basis rule.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Paragraphs47-48 grant recognition

AUD-G17-D005 · 5 marks

A management reserve is called a donor restriction An NGO receives Rs 12 lakh expressly restricted by a donor to a nutrition project. Its board separately earmarks Rs 5 lakh of unrestricted funds for a future office move. Accounts merge both amounts into a single externally restricted fund. The exercise uses the NPO guide's fund definitions; no tax exemption is assumed. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Classify the external restriction.The Rs 12 lakh nutrition donation is restricted by its contributor.
1Classify management designation.The Rs 5 lakh office earmarking is a designated part of unrestricted funds, not an external donor restriction.
1Inspect evidence of each purpose.Check donor agreement and board resolution, including permitted use, variation and reporting; labels alone are not evidence.
1Test movements and balances separately.Trace nutrition expenditure against donor conditions and office designation against board decisions; keep distinct fund reconciliations.
1Correct misleading combined presentation.Separate restricted and designated-unrestricted balances under the supplied guide and disclose material purpose conditions, without implying the board may override a donor.

Non-credit errors

  • No external restriction created solely by a board label; no automatic tax-exempt status.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Definitions; fund presentation

AUD-G17-D006 · 10 marks

Grant cash, eligible programme cost and duplicate reimbursement An NGO's supplied donor agreement provides Rs 24 lakh for a training programme. Only delivered training costs incurred during the year are eligible. The report charges Rs 18 lakh:Rs 12 lakh of evidenced delivered training,Rs 3 lakh advance for next year's courses,Rs 2 lakh administration not allowed by this donor and Rs 1 lakh invoice also claimed against another donor. All Rs 18 lakh is recorded as expense and used grant income. The bank has Rs 6 lakh of grant cash left. Apply the guide's separate revenue-grant income/expense presentation and the supplied refundable-unspent condition; the agreement prohibits duplicate recovery. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the cash report.Rs 24 lakh received less Rs 18 lakh disbursed leaves Rs 6 lakh cash; agreement with bank does not prove eligibility.
1Separate delivered training cost.Rs 12 lakh is the evidenced eligible programme cost on the supplied facts.
1Test and classify the advance.Rs 3 lakh is for next-year training and is not current delivered cost; verify recoverability and classify as an advance, not current expense.
1Test donor-ineligible administration.Rs 2 lakh may be a real entity expense but is not eligible under this donor contract; do not erase it from entity accounts merely because the donor excludes it.
1Investigate duplicate reimbursement.The Rs 1 lakh invoice cannot be recovered twice under the supplied agreements; trace both claims and determine the proper funded share/refund.
1Calculate eligible utilisation without double-counting.Rs 18 lakh less Rs 3 lakh advance less Rs 2 lakh administration less Rs 1 lakh duplicate equals Rs 12 lakh eligible use.
1Calculate grant balance requiring reconciliation.Rs 24 lakh less Rs 12 lakh eligible use gives Rs 12 lakh not earned/eligible under this grant, not merely the Rs 6 lakh cash balance.
1Apply the supplied refund obligation.Assess Rs 12 lakh as refundable/deferred under the actual stated terms and accounting facts, including other fund balances; do not assume the bank balance is the full liability.
1Correct both accounts and donor report.Under the exercise criteria recognise the Rs 12 lakh used revenue grant separately from relevant expense, remove the advance from expense and correct the utilisation report; resolve duplicate accounting based on substance.
1Obtain evidence and address control failures.Inspect attendance/delivery records, contracts, invoices, bank transfers, advance confirmation and donor claims; establish claim identifiers and review before reimbursement, without claiming fraud is already proven.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 18 lakh eligible use or Rs 6 lakh-only grant balance; donor-ineligible expense does not automatically cease to be an entity expense.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Paragraph49(c),(f), explicit donor conditions

AUD-G17-D007 · 3 marks

A bookkeeping task is presented as a full audit A sole proprietor agrees orally that an accountant will prepare accounts and check only cash transactions. The proprietor later asks for a document titled"Full audit of the business"for a bank. Inventory, liabilities and credit sales were not examined. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (3 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Clarify the actual engagement in writing.Confirm preparation work and limited checking, purpose, responsibility and exclusions rather than treat an oral partial task as a full audit.
1Reject misleading assurance.Unexamined inventory, liabilities and credit sales prevent representing that all business accounts have been audited on these facts.
1Agree the proper next step.Either perform an appropriately scoped full audit with sufficient evidence or give an accurately described limited-work output; bank purpose does not retrospectively expand evidence.

Non-credit errors

  • No universal exemption from statutory/tax audit and no full-audit label for partial bookkeeping.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.32-9.33 scope and written appointment

AUD-G17-D008 · 5 marks

One partner changes profit sharing without the others The written deed givesA and Bprofits in 3:2, permits Rs 2 lakh salary to A and requires firm tax provision before division. Profit before that salary and a supplied Rs 1 lakh firm tax is Rs 13 lakh. A allocates Rs 7 lakh to himself and Rs 5 lakh to B after deducting only tax. No amended deed exists. Tax deductibility is not asked. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Read the deed and approved changes.Confirm the 3:2 ratio,Rs 2 lakh salary and required tax provision; a partner posting is not an amendment.
1Compute profit available for sharing.Rs 13 lakh less Rs 2 lakh salary less Rs 1 lakh tax is Rs 10 lakh.
1Compute each profit share.A receives Rs 6 lakh andB Rs 4 lakh of divisible profit under 3:2.
1Separate salary from profit share.A total allocation is Rs 8 lakh including Rs 2 lakh salary;B Rs 4 lakh. Recorded Rs 7 lakh/Rs 5 lakh shifts Rs 1 lakh fromAto B compared with the deed.
1Verify entries and resolve the breach.Inspect appointment/deed, salary authority, tax provision and partners current accounts; correct allocation with authorised evidence rather than infer tax deductibility or legal damages.

Non-credit errors

  • No division of Rs 12 lakh before deed salary; do not call Rs 1 lakh mismatch a total firm loss.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.34-9.36 deed, tax and division

AUD-G17-D009 · 5 marks

The active partner borrows beyond the deed A firm's deed limits borrowing to Rs 10 lakh without both partners' written approval. The active partner takes a Rs 16 lakh loan without the second signature and keeps it outside the ledger because"it is unauthorised". Bank confirmation and bank receipt prove the firm's actual obligation and receipt. No cancellation or discharge exists. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Separate authority breach from accounting existence.Lack of deed approval does not erase the supplied actual obligation and bank receipt.
1Quantify the authority exception.Rs 16 lakh exceeds the Rs 10 lakh permitted limit by Rs 6 lakh, but that is not the amount of the loan to recognise.
1Record and audit the complete obligation.Test the Rs 16 lakh principal, interest, terms and bank receipt, including security and required disclosures under the applicable framework.
1Assess partner interests and management explanation.Read the deed, approvals/minutes and use of money; determine whether unauthorised borrowing prejudices the other partner.
1Report and seek supported correction.Correct omission and communicate the deed breach; legal enforceability is supplied here, not inferred from one partner signature in every real case.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 6 lakh-only liability or omission because borrowing lacks authority.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.35-9.36 borrowing powers and mutual interests

AUD-G17-D010 · 5 marks

An agreed LLP audit is replaced by partner signatures The LLP partners elect to have the year's accounts audited and approve an engagement. The designated partners sign the statement of account and solvency and claim their signatures replace the independent audit. The audit firm has received only a profit total, with no contribution or withdrawal schedules. Mandatory threshold applicability is deliberately not supplied. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Distinguish partner responsibility from audit.Designated-partner statement responsibility/signatures do not constitute an independent auditor report.
1Apply the elective audit fact.The partners chose an audit; the ICAIguidance states that a voluntarily chosen audit follows the rule rather than becoming partner self-certification.
1Obtain partner-fund evidence.Inspect LLPagreement and opening contribution/current balances, capital introduced, remuneration/interest, withdrawals and profit shares; profit total alone is incomplete.
1Apply proper financial-statement audit work.Obtain adequate books, assets/liabilities and supporting evidence, evaluating presentation under the applicable framework instead of issuing a report from signatures alone.
1Avoid an unsupported threshold conclusion.No mandatory audit determination is needed to answer the chosen-engagement case; preserve the actual Rule 24 wording and verify current statutory rules before separate threshold advice.

Non-credit errors

  • No invented AND replacement of the source OR wording; partner signatures are not the audit.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Audit requirements; LLP partner-fund disclosures

AUD-G17-D011 · 5 marks

A single closing balance hides withdrawals An LLP shows partner C contribution of Rs 20 lakh at both year-ends. During the year C introduced Rs 8 lakh and withdrew Rs 8 lakh. C also has an agreed Rs 1.5 lakh remuneration credited to a separate current account. Notes show only "no change in contribution" and omit the current account. The exercise uses the ICAI LLP Guidance Note partner-fund disclosure format. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the unchanged closing balance.Rs 20 lakh opening plus Rs 8 lakh introduced less Rs 8 lakh withdrawn equals Rs 20 lakh closing; unchanged net balance does not mean no movements.
1Disclose contribution movements separately.The guide format calls for opening, introduced/contributed, withdrawals and closing details, as applicable, rather than hiding gross movements.
1Test the separate current account.Trace the Rs 1.5 lakh remuneration, its authorisation under the LLP agreement and any other current-account entries; do not merge it silently into fixed contribution.
1Check agreed versus actual contribution.Inspect agreement and evidence of contribution and withdrawals, and disclose agreed contribution as required by the format.
1Correct notes with supporting evidence.Prepare the applicable partner-wise reconciliation and presentation; do not conclude repayment occurred merely because net contribution stayed unchanged.

Non-credit errors

  • No zero-movement inference from equal opening and closing balances; no invented audit threshold conclusion.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Partner-fund disclosures, chapterII

AUD-G17-D012 · 3 marks

A street collection has only a volunteer estimate A charity uses numbered sealed collection boxes. One box is opened by a volunteer alone before the official count; its seal and collection sheet are missing. The charity books Rs 18000 using that volunteer's estimate. Other boxes were jointly counted and banked. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (3 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify the broken collection trail.The missing seal, independent count and collection sheet weaken evidence for this box; controls on other boxes do not cure it.
1Seek available corroboration without fabricating a count.Inspect issue/return logs, volunteer records, witnesses, any count notes and banking; reconcile identifiable collections and investigate missing evidence.
1Communicate the limitation and improve controls.Record the unsupported Rs 18000 estimate and evaluate further audit implications; require sealed return, dual count and signed reconciliation, without assuming the whole amount was stolen.

Non-credit errors

  • Volunteer estimate is not an independently verified count; no automatic theft allegation.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.41 box-collection control

AUD-G17-D013 · 10 marks

A charity concert is reported net and omits direct-bank tickets A charity prints 1000 numbered concert tickets at Rs 500. Records show 120 returned unsold and 80 authorised complimentary tickets. The remaining 800 were sold; payment evidence supports 700 tickets paid in cash and 100 paid directly to bank. The organiser reports Rs 350000 cash less Rs 60000 expenses, and the charity records Rs 290000 net income only. Vouchers support Rs 45000 of those expenses; the remaining Rs 15000 lacks evidence. No refund or tax is involved. The exercise requires gross event receipts and separate event expenses. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the ticket population.1000 printed less 120 unsold less 80 authorised free passes equals 800 sold.
1Compute the expected gross sales.800 times Rs 500 equals Rs 400000; complimentary and unsold tickets are not sales.
1Reconcile cash receipts.700 cash-paid tickets times Rs 500 equals Rs 350000, matching the organiser cash figure.
1Trace direct-bank receipts separately.100 tickets times Rs 500 equals Rs 50000 direct deposits; verify bank credits and prevent omission or duplication.
1Identify the netting error.Rs 290000 alone hides Rs 400000 gross receipts and Rs 60000 claimed expenses, and misses Rs 50000 direct bank receipts.
1Reconcile the reported cash settlement.Rs 350000 less Rs 60000 claimed expenses is Rs 290000 remitted; inspect actual remittance and payments, not only the organiser arithmetic.
1Separate supported and unsupported expenses.Rs 45000 is supported; Rs 15000 needs alternative evidence and investigation, not automatic acceptance.
1Apply the supplied gross-presentation criterion.Record verified gross receipts separately from substantiated expenses; do not use net remittance as gross event revenue.
1Verify population completeness and authorisation.Inspect ticket issue/return numbers, cancelled tickets, free-pass approvals, attendance and receipts; missing serials may indicate unrecorded tickets beyond this reconciled schedule.
1Explain proposed result and limits.If all claimed expenses are substantiated, event surplus is Rs 340000; on currently supported expenses it is Rs 355000 before resolving Rs 15000. Do not call the alternative evidence ceiling a final proven surplus or loss.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 290000 gross income, no sales for 120 unsold/80 free tickets and no Rs 15000 automatic theft finding.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.42 special functions; explicit gross presentation

AUD-G17-D014 · 5 marks

A school records every deposit as fee income A school receives Rs 9 lakh from students:Rs 6 lakh for current tuition,Rs 1 lakh for next year's tuition and Rs 2 lakh refundable caution deposits. All Rs 9 lakh is tuition income. No amount has become non-refundable and the exercise uses accrual accounting. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify current earned tuition.Rs 6 lakh relates to the current year; trace fee register, class rolls and receipts for completeness and accuracy.
1Identify advance tuition.Rs 1 lakh for next year is not current-year earned tuition under the supplied accrual criterion.
1Identify refundable deposits.Rs 2 lakh remains a liability, not fee revenue, while refundable under the supplied terms.
1Quantify the overstatement and liability omission.Current tuition income is overstated Rs 3 lakh; advance tuition plus caution liabilities of Rs 3 lakh are omitted on these facts.
1Verify terms and correct separate schedules.Check fee periods, deposit receipts, refund rules and student-wise balances; reconcile cash without assuming every admission charge or deposit has identical treatment.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 9 lakh current tuition and no automatic capital-fund rule for all admission receipts.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.43-9.45 advances and caution deposits

AUD-G17-D015 · 5 marks

Concession authority is not supported by a friendly note The school's written rules allow fee concessions only after scholarship-committee approval. The clerk gives concessions totaling Rs 240000 using unsigned notes from parents. The head says hardship seems genuine and asks the auditor to mark the whole amount "approved". No later approval is supplied. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify the actual authority criterion.The supplied rules require scholarship-committee approval; a clerk or head opinion does not establish that approval.
1Test concession completeness and accuracy.Match the concession register to class rolls, normal fee demands and student ledgers; check whether Rs 240000 reflects genuine concessions rather than missing receipts.
1Seek valid approval and eligibility evidence.Inspect committee minutes, applications and evidence against school criteria, including whether authority was delegated lawfully.
1Distinguish hardship from authority.Genuine hardship may support eligibility but does not itself satisfy the stated approval requirement; do not label all beneficiaries fraudulent.
1Report the unsupported concessions accurately.Rs 240000 lacks the supplied authority evidence; seek regularisation/correction through the proper body and evaluate actual recoverability, without automatically booking cash loss or collectible debt.

Non-credit errors

  • No automatic approval from compassion, no assumption every concession is fraud or fully recoverable.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.44 authorised free studentship/concessions

AUD-G17-D016 · 10 marks

A prize endowment is used to fund the hostel A college receives Rs 20 lakh under a deed requiring principal to remain invested, annual income to fund merit prizes and unspent prize income to be added to the investment. During the year it earns Rs 160000 interest and pays Rs 100000 prizes. It transfers Rs 300000 of principal to hostel repairs. The remaining Rs 60000 prize income is left in the general bank account and described as "available surplus". College general funds separately owe Rs 50000 for delivered hostel food at year-end, but no liability is recorded. The deed and accrual basis are supplied. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify the deed's separate restrictions.Principal retention, prize use and reinvestment of surplus interest must each be tested; general educational purpose does not remove them.
1Verify the original corpus investment.Trace Rs 20 lakh receipt, investment ownership/custody and year-end balance, including the Rs 300000 withdrawal.
1Identify the unauthorised principal use.Rs 300000 for hostel repairs breaches the supplied principal restriction; verify authority, purpose and recovery/restoration rather than treat it as prize expenditure.
1Reconcile annual prize income.Rs 160000 interest less Rs 100000 prizes leaves Rs 60000 unspent prize income.
1Apply the reinvestment requirement.Rs 60000 is not free general surplus; trace its subsequent or required investment and disclose the year-end condition accurately.
1Calculate the expected protected balance.Rs 20 lakh principal plus Rs 60000 accumulated interest equals Rs 2060000 subject to the deed; assuming no other changes, actual investment Rs 17 lakh leaves Rs 360000 not invested as required.
1Avoid a false all-loss total.Rs 360000 is Rs 300000 diverted principal plus Rs 60000 cash awaiting investment; cash retained is not itself a proved loss.
1Audit the prize disbursements.Check authorised awards, recipients, acknowledgments and payment records rather than assume Rs 100000 is valid solely from a bank debit.
1Record the separate hostel accrual.Rs 50000 for delivered food is a current expense/payable under the supplied facts; it is not netted against the endowment breach or ignored because unpaid.
1Report separate schedules and remedial needs.Keep endowment, prize and hostel records separate; seek restoration/investment and liability correction, evaluating supported reporting implications without automatic tax-exemption or opinion claims.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 60000 free surplus, no Rs 360000 automatic loss and no netting Rs 50000 hostel creditor against endowed funds.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.45 endowment, hostel, provisions and separate funds

AUD-G17-D017 · 3 marks

Admissions occur without bills A hospital's attendance register records 20 chargeable day-care treatments. The billing system has invoices for only 16. Management says checking the 16 invoices back to attendance proves complete revenue. The correct tariff for the four omitted treatments is not yet verified. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (3 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reverse the testing direction for completeness.Trace the attendance population to bills to detect unbilled treatments; bill-to-attendance tests do not cover omitted bills.
1Investigate the four omitted treatments.Verify chargeability, authorised waivers, tariff, service records and subsequent billing rather than price them at an invented standard amount.
1Evaluate correction and controls.Assess revenue/receivable omission after reliable tariff evidence; reconcile admissions/services to billing and report the four-case gap without asserting a known rupee loss.

Non-credit errors

  • No completeness assurance from examining only the 16 issued bills.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.46 patient-register/billing audit

AUD-G17-D018 · 5 marks

Expired medicine is counted as fully usable stock The hospital has 500 vials at recorded cost Rs 200 each. Physical count finds 500, but 80 have expired and may no longer be administered; no return credit or salvage value is available. Another 40 require cold storage, but temperature logs are missing. The supplied valuation criterion excludes expired stock and requires further assessment of uncertain usability. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Separate quantity from usability.Count agreement 500 does not establish all vials have service potential or are correctly valued.
1Calculate the known expired-stock adjustment.80 times Rs 200 equals Rs 16000 to exclude under the supplied criterion; otherwise recorded stock Rs 100000 is overstated by at least that amount.
1Assess cold-chain uncertainty separately.40 times Rs 200 equals Rs 8000 exposure pending condition evidence, not a proven additional Rs 8000 write-off.
1Obtain appropriate evidence.Inspect batches/expiry, return terms, quarantine, pharmacy issue records and temperature/independent condition evidence for the 40 vials.
1Correct and strengthen controls.Remove known unusable value, evaluate remaining uncertainty and improve expiry/cold-chain controls; do not treat all 500 or all 120 as definitely valueless.

Non-credit errors

  • No automatic Rs 24000 totalwrite-off from missing logs; count agreement is not valuation proof.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.47 medicines/stores and inventory

AUD-G17-D019 · 5 marks

Donated equipment is personally registered A donor funds a ventilator for the hospital's intensive-care unit with a condition that it belongs to the hospital and is used there. Invoice/title is in the medical director's personal name and the machine is kept at his private clinic. Accounts show a hospital-owned intensive-care asset based only on the donor receipt. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Test the donor purpose and ownership condition.Read the agreement rather than infer that a hospital donation permits private use.
1Test rights and location separately.The personal title and private-clinic location contradict the claimed hospital ownership/use; inspect legal title, control, custody and any valid arrangement.
1Trace the acquisition and funds.Verify vendor payment, invoice, donor records, delivery and asset-register details, not only the grant receipt.
1Assess accounting and grant consequences.Determine whether the hospital controls an asset, has a recovery claim or refund obligation under actual terms; do not automatically record a hospital PPE asset.
1Communicate the conflict and seek correction.Obtain evidence, restoration/title transfer as appropriate and supported reporting; do not infer that legal control can never differ from invoice name or assert criminal guilt from these facts alone.

Non-credit errors

  • Donor cash receipt does not prove hospital-owned asset; no automatic clean title or accusation.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.47 restricted donations, authorisation, registers

AUD-G17-D020 · 5 marks

A subscription ledger carries forward the wrong arrears A club has Rs 80000 opening subscription arrears. Current-year subscriptions demanded are Rs 600000. Collections applied to current dues are Rs 520000 and to opening arrears Rs 50000. The supplied rules permit an authorised Rs 10000 write-off of old arrears, which is recorded. Next-year subscription advances Rs 30000 are wrongly credited against this year's demand. The club reports nil closing dues. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile opening arrears separately.Rs 80000 less Rs 50000 collections less Rs 10000 authorised write-off leaves Rs 20000 old arrears.
1Reconcile current-year demand.Rs 600000 less Rs 520000 current collections leaves Rs 80000 current arrears.
1Calculate true closing subscription dues.Rs 20000 old plus Rs 80000 current equals Rs 100000 closing dues before any other evidenced adjustments.
1Separate next-year advances.Rs 30000 is advance subscription, not settlement of the current demand; verify receipt period and classify appropriately.
1Test members and recovery evidence.Inspect membership register, rates, receipts, write-off authority and aging; correct nil dues without assuming all Rs 100000 is recoverable or irrecoverable.

Non-credit errors

  • No nil dues or use of Rs 30000 next-yearadvance to cancel current arrears.
Official concept source: Official concept source references Printed9.48 subscriptions, arrears and advances

AUD-G17-D021 · 5 marks

Members consume goods without account debits A club's restaurant records show Rs 90000 food served to members and their guests on signed orders, all chargeable under its tariff. Only Rs 64000 reaches member accounts. The bar margin also falls sharply, but no count, wastage or pricing analysis has been performed. The secretary says the margin fall proves Rs 26000 theft. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Quantify the billing-posting gap.Rs 90000 signed chargeable orders less Rs 64000 member debits leaves Rs 26000 to investigate.
1Trace service records to member accounts.Match order slips, table/member identifiers and tariff to bills/debits, including guests charged to hosts; test for omitted or wrongly routed charges.
1Distinguish posting error from theft.The Rs 26000 gap concerns completeness of member charges; check subsequent postings, payments and authorised adjustments before alleging diversion.
1Investigate margin causes separately.Test purchases, physical inventory, selling prices, complimentary supplies, spoilage/wastage and cut-off; margin change is a risk indicator, not a quantified theft finding.
1Correct supported balances and controls.Recover/record valid charges and establish order-to-bill reconciliation, while communicating unsupported margin explanations and expanding relevant audit work.

Non-credit errors

  • No causal proof connecting every margin fall to the Rs 26000 postinggap.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.48-9.49 member-account charges and margins

AUD-G17-D022 · 3 marks

A free-pass list replaces ticket reconciliation A cinema admits patrons through QR tickets but permits a supervisor to create unlogged complimentary codes. Paid ticket settlement reconciles to bank. Management concludes all admissions are controlled because cash agrees. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (3 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Separate paid-settlement agreement from admission control.Cash/bank reconciliation does not prove all admissions were paid or free codes authorised.
1Test the complete admission population.Inspect gate scans, issued QR identifiers, cancellations, free-code log and supervisor permissions, reconciling admissions to paid tickets and authorised passes.
1Require traceable free-pass authority.Use controlled issuance and reviewed exception logs; investigate unsupported codes without treating every legitimate complimentary admission as missing cash.

Non-credit errors

  • No complete admission assurance from paid settlement alone.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.49-9.50 ticket series and free passes, digital application

AUD-G17-D023 · 5 marks

The distributor advance is never adjusted A cinema pays Rs 8 lakh advance to a distributor. The film has already run and the signed contract establishes Rs 5 lakhfinalhire, leaving Rs 3 lakh refundable. Accounts retain the entire Rs 8 lakh advance and omit film-hire expense. The distributor disputes the refund and gives no payment assurance. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Apply the performed hire contract.Rs 5 lakhfinalhire relates to a film already run and should not remain an unconsumed advance under the supplied facts.
1Reconcile the residual claim.Rs 8 lakh paid less Rs 5 lakh hire leaves Rs 3 lakh refundable claim, subject to evidence and recoverability.
1Audit the hire settlement.Check agreement, distributor invoice, exhibition period, revenue-share terms if any, and payment/settlement records; do not guess a percentage.
1Assess the disputed refund separately.Obtain correspondence, confirmation and collection/legal evidence; evaluate appropriate impairment/provision without automatically writing off all Rs 8 lakh.
1Correct classification and supported estimates.Recognise the Rs 5 lakh hire and separately assess Rs 3 lakhclaim; an old unchanged advance is not proof of full recovery or total loss.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 8 lakhongoing advance after completed film and no automatic Rs 8 lakhwrite-off.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.50-9.51 hire contracts and unadjusted advances

AUD-G17-D024 · 5 marks

Cash price and total instalments are confused A hire-purchase financier's signed contract identifies equipment, a Rs 4 lakh cash price,Rs 1 lakh initial payment andthree Rs 1.2 lakh instalments. Total contract price is Rs 4.6 lakh. Management books all Rs 3.6 lakh future instalments as principal receivable and all Rs 60000 financeincome immediately. The supplied accounting policy allocates finance income over the contract term as earned; no early maturity has occurred. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile total consideration.Rs 1 lakh initial payment plus 3 times Rs 1.2 lakh equals Rs 4.6 lakh total price.
1Separate finance component from cash price.Rs 4.6 lakh total less Rs 4 lakh cash price equals Rs 60000 finance component; it is not extra equipment principal.
1Identify cash-price balance.Rs 4 lakh cash price less Rs 1 lakh initial payment leaves Rs 3 lakh principal before other accrued items; Rs 3.6 lakh future cash includes finance income.
1Apply the supplied earning policy.Do not recognise all Rs 60000 at inception; verify timing and schedule under the stated policy rather than invent an interest rate or earned amount.
1Inspect agreement and performance evidence.Check asset identification/delivery, signatures, due dates and actual instalment collection; reconcile principal, earned income and arrears separately.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 3.6 lakh pure principal or universal upfront Rs 60000 income; no invented statutory hire-purchase rule.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.51-9.52 agreement and instalment checks; explicit accounting policy

AUD-G17-D025 · 5 marks

The lessor uses legal title as its only classification test A leasing company applies AS 19 in this exercise. Its supplied criteria assess substance and transfer of substantially all risks and rewards. An equipment lease covers 9 of 10 years economic life, rentals' present value is 98% of fair value and equipment can be used only by this lessee without major modification. Legal title remains with the lessor. Management calls it operating solely for that reason. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Use the supplied framework, not title alone.Under the stated AS 19 criteria, retained legal ownership does not decide operating versus finance classification.
1Assess the lease term indicator.9 of 10 years is 90% of economic life, indicating a major portion on the supplied facts; do not impose a universal numerical bright line.
1Assess rental-value and specialised-asset indicators.98% presentvalue and lessee-specific nature support transfer of substantially all risks/rewards in this exercise.
1Conclude from substance and inspect terms.These combined facts support finance-lease classification; verify contract, valuation, residual risks, delivery/acceptance and any contradictory terms.
1Keep framework and audit consequences distinct.Evaluate lessor accounting/disclosures under AS 19 and the verified classification; do not export this exercise to every Ind AS116 lessee or infer accounting solely from legal title.

Non-credit errors

  • No universal 90% test or claim that Ind AS116 lessees use identical classification.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.54-9.55 AS19 indicators; explicit exercise applicability

AUD-G17-D026 · 5 marks

Housekeeping occupancy disagrees with guest bills A hotel housekeeping report lists 40 occupied rooms for a night. Front-office bills cover 34 at Rs 3000 each. Two other rooms are documented staff stays without charge. Four have guests and no bills. No discount, complimentary approval or alternative billing exists for those four; the supplied tariff is Rs 3000 perroom. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the occupancy population.40 occupied less 34 billed less 2 documented staff stays leaves 4 unbilled guest rooms.
1Quantify the supported billing omission.4 times Rs 3000 equals Rs 12000 under the supplied tariff; do not charge the 2 staffrooms contrary to stated policy.
1Trace occupancy to revenue records.Match housekeeping, guest register, reservation records and individual bills, not merely billed rooms back to the register.
1Test authority and cut-off.Confirm staff-use authority and whether guest nights span year-end, as well as later billing and payment, before final adjustment.
1Correct and improve reconciliation.Assess Rs 12000 revenue/receivable omission and institute reviewed daily housekeeping-to-front-office matching; do not declare known cash theft from absent billing alone.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 18000 omission based on all 6 unbilledrooms; staff use is separately documented.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.57 room sales and housekeeper reports

AUD-G17-D027 · 10 marks

The kitchen order trail, booking commission and wedding deposit A hotel outlet receives 200 authorised kitchen orders at a supplied Rs 800 selling price; 10 are cancelled with evidence and 20 are authorised staff meals without charge. POS has 150 chargeable bills and cash/bank collections Rs 120000, all matched to those bills. There is no discount or other valid omission. A travel agent also sends Rs 90000 net for rooms whose gross bill is Rs 100000 and whose contract permits 10% commission. Separately, Rs 50000 received for next year's wedding is credited to current hall income. Apply gross room/outlet revenue and separate commission and advance-liability presentation, with no tax or refund complication. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify chargeable kitchen orders.200 less 10 cancelled less 20 authorised staff meals equals 170 chargeable orders.
1Compute expected outlet revenue.170 times Rs 800 equals Rs 136000 under the supplied tariff.
1Reconcile billed outlet receipts.150 times Rs 800 equals Rs 120000 matched collections, so bank agreement covers billed sales only.
1Identify omitted outlet billing.20 chargeable orders missing times Rs 800 equals Rs 16000 billing/revenuegap, not proven missing cash.
1Inspect the order-to-bill population.Match KOT identifiers, POS, cancellations, staff authority and service evidence; check completeness and duplicate bill links.
1Reconcile travel-agent commission.10% of Rs 100000 is Rs 10000; Rs 90000 net settlement agrees, but gross room revenue and separate commission remain required by the exercise.
1Correct net room-income presentation.If Rs 90000 was booked as room income, room revenue and commission are each understated Rs 10000; net profit effect of this gross-up is nil before other issues.
1Classify the wedding receipt.Rs 50000 fornext year is advance liability, not current hall income under supplied earning criteria.
1Explain separate profit effects and limits.Wedding misclassification overstates current income Rs 50000; outlet omission may understate revenue Rs 16000. If corrected as supplied, combined profit falls Rs 34000, while grossing commission alone does not change profit.
1Verify supporting records and communicate controls.Inspect agent agreement/settlement, hall booking contract and year-end service dates; correct distinct balances and retain daily outlet reconciliation rather than net errors into one unexplained adjustment.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 16000 proven theft; no Rs 10000 profitrise from grossing room revenue and commission; wedding cash is not earned income.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.56-9.58 KOTs, room/hall bookings and agents; explicit presentation

AUD-G17-D028 · 5 marks

Casual staff signatures repeat for absent workers A hotel pays cash wages to 40 casualworkers. Attendance records support 32; eight signatures are identical and no supervisor certifies their shifts. The manager asks the auditor to accept the payroll because busy-season casual staff rarely keep records. No proof that the eight actually worked exists. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Identify the weak casual-labour evidence.Cash-payroll signatures alone, especially identical ones, do not support eight unverified workers or their attendance.
1Test the independent work population.Compare shift rosters, attendance/access records, task records and supervisor evidence to wage rates and payments.
1Verify actual recipients.Investigate identities, duplicated signatures, acknowledgments and cash withdrawal/distribution without relying solely on the preparer.
1Assess unsupported wages without premature accusation.Determine amount and accounting/audit implications from evidence; busy season does not cure missing support, but absence alone is not proof of fictitious workers.
1Recommend fitting controls.Use approved rosters, independently certified attendance, separate payroll review and traceable payment; expand tests for similar anomalies rather than automatically qualify solely from eight signatures.

Non-credit errors

  • No busy-season waiver of evidence and no automatic fraud conclusion.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.58 casual labour

AUD-G17-D029 · 5 marks

A national name hides a State-law question An organisation calls itself "National Welfare Trust". Its auditor uses one State's public-trust accounts format for every branch and the IndianTrustsAct 1882 as a universal fallback. The registration instrument, legal form, relevant State enactment and branch requirements have not been examined. Management also assumes automatic income-tax exemption from the word "welfare". Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (5 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Verify actual legal form and registration.Inspect founding/registration instruments and whether the entity is a public trust, society, section 8 company or other form; name alone establishes none.
1Identify applicable jurisdiction and reporting criteria.Determine governing enactments, rules, deed/bylaws and branch obligations before selecting an accounts/audit format.
1Do not teach the blanket fallback.The module fallback is held: the IndianTrustsAct describes private trusts and section 1 religious/charitable exclusions require proper legal checking, not universal public-trust application.
1Verify tax status independently.Inspect relevant current tax registrations/conditions and applicable law; charitable labels do not automatically establish exemption or refund rights.
1Document the verified criteria before reporting.Match records and statements to actual requirements, preserving unresolved legal questions rather than issue a compliance statement from guessed State rules.

Non-credit errors

  • No universalStateformat, automatic 1882 fallback or tax exemption from an entity name.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.75-9.77 legal form/records; law fallback held, not asserted

AUD-G17-D030 · 10 marks

A society's restricted fund, personal payment and missing papers A society's supplied bylaws require two committee approvals for payments above Rs 25000 and project-specific donor accounting. It receives Rs 10 lakh for library books, pays Rs 7 lakh to the approved supplier for delivered books,Rs 1 lakh advance for future books and Rs 80000 for a committee member's personal vehicle repair. The Rs 80000 payment has onlyone approval. Accounts report Rs 880000 library expense and stateall payments authorised. Remaining bank balance is Rs 120000. No recovery, donation variation or advance delivery occurred. The exercise uses accrual accounting and donor terms requiring library use and refund of amounts not eligible; no jurisdiction-specific mandatory form is assumed. Required: Apply the entity-specific audit principles to these facts. (10 marks)
Show answer and marking
MarksCreditCase application / answer
1Reconcile the cash movement.Rs 10 lakh less Rs 7 lakh less Rs 1 lakh less Rs 80000 equals Rs 120000 bank balance; arithmetic does not prove eligible expenditure.
1Identify delivered library cost.Rs 7 lakh is evidenced current library cost, subject to verification of delivery and purpose.
1Classify the future-book advance.Rs 1 lakh is not delivered-book expense; verify recoverability and present separately under supplied accrual criteria.
1Investigate the personal benefit.Rs 80000 vehicle repair is supplied personal expenditure outside library purpose; examine recovery and appropriate balance treatment rather than silently call it programme cost.
1Apply the approval threshold.Rs 80000 exceeds Rs 25000 and has one instead of two required approvals; stated all-payments-authorised is unsupported.
1Calculate eligible grant use.Only Rs 7 lakh eligible use is supplied; recorded Rs 880000 expense includes Rs 180000 not current eligible library cost.
1Calculate unearned/refundable grant balance.Rs 10 lakh less Rs 7 lakh eligible use leaves Rs 3 lakh to reconcile under the refund condition, comprising Rs 120000 cash, Rs 1 lakh advance and Rs 80000 personal diversion.
1Avoid duplicate loss or liability totals.Rs 3 lakhgrant balance and Rs 180000 ineligible current charge overlap; do not add them to assert Rs 480000 loss, and remaining cash is not missing.
1Obtain records and maintain audit evidence.Inspect bylaws, donor agreement, supplier confirmation, delivery/title records, approval minutes and personal payment; document work, sources, explanations and decisions.
1Correct reporting and communicate supported findings.Seek expense/advance/personal-balance and donor-liability corrections, investigate related-party handling and report actual authority/purpose breaches with reasons; no automatic opinion type or tax-exemption claim.

Non-credit errors

  • No Rs 880000 eligibleuse, no Rs 120000-onlygrant balance, no Rs 480000 automaticloss and no universalStateform.
Official concept source: Official entity-specific concept source references Printed9.76-9.77 records/working papers; explicit bylaws/donor criteria