Practices and Disclosure Policies of Accounting Standards in ...

108

ISSN 0974-9977PCMA Journal of Business Vol. 1, No. 2 (June, 2009) 108-120

Practices and Disclosure Policies of AccountingStandards in India: An Empirical Study of selected

Private Sectors’ Service UndertakingsDr. P.D. Saini* Dr. Sheetal Sachdeva**

*Faculty of commerce, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, (Deemed University)Dayalbagh,Agra

**Hindustan Institute of Management & Computer Studies, Ferah, Mathura

ABSTRACT:Accounting Standards in India are issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of India (ICAI) help to minimize and eliminate confusions and misunderstanding. Even thenthe accounting professionals have to apply their best of ability and skill to judge properlywhat measure should be adopted by them in tackling a specific problem. The present study isconducted to examine the compliance of the Indian Accounting Standards (AS), by thePrivate Sector’s Service Undertakings. For this purpose, implementation of first AS 15 hasbeen analyzed. The results of the study indicate that there is a need for an improvement indisclosure policies of the corporate. In order to remove controversy arising out ofimplementation of accounting standards or in exercising a judgment a proposal forestablishing `Accounting Commission’ may be made at the national level.

Keywords :- Disclosure, Accounting standard, Service Sector’s

INTRODUCTIONAccounting Standards may be defined as policy documents issued by expert

accounting body or Government or other regulatory body covering the aspects of recognition,measurement, treatment, presentation and disclosure of accounting transaction in the financialstatement. Accounting Standards in India are issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountantsof India (ICAI). Objective of Accounting Standards is to standardize the diverse accountingpolicies and practices with a view to eliminate to the extent possible the non-comparability offinancial statements and add the reliability to the financial statements.

I - SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

PCMA Journal of Business Vol. 1, No. 2 (June, 2009) 108-120

109

Accounting Standards seek to describe accounting principles, the valuation techniquesand the method of applying accounting principles in the preparation and presentation of financial statements.Accounting Standards are a regulatory framework within which financial statementsare prepared for universal acceptance.Institute of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI), the apex body in India, is memberof International Accounting Standard Committee (IASC) – London.ICAI has issued 31 accounting standards

II- REVIEW OF LITERATUREThe accounting standards practice depends on the various policies of the government.

The ICAI issues the accounting standards (AS) and then it will be made mandatory fororganizations. So, fulfillment of such requires corporate disclose AS related information in itsannual reports. Disclosures of informantion depend on a number of factors like regulations, costrelated to disclosures and market forces. Batra G.S. (1998) states the AS is recommendatory in nature, the auditors shouldrecommend and persuade with the requirements of the standard and during the course of time ofauditing, if they found any variation; they should be disclosed in their audit report.

Joshi’s (2006) study was based on disclosure practices in financial institutions. He hadtaken various parameters for study but he could’t finds any relations,Sing (2006) and Bhatt (2006) and Shastri (2006) have tried to explain the theoreticalbackground of Indian Accounting Standards: Indian GAAP and US GAAP.

Bhalla and Bhalla (2006) have conducted a study to know the corporate disclosurepractices on Indian companies and found that disclosure practices of the companies are notsignificantly influenced by any of selected company characteristics.

In the present study, an effort has been made to study the measure and evaluate as towhat extent the Indian Private Sector Service organizations are following the provisions ofIndian Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI while preparing their financial statements.

III - METHODOLOGY OF STUDY:In the present study, an attempt has been made to measure and evaluate as to what

extent the Private Sector Service Organizations are following the Provisions of AS issued bythe ICAI, while preparing their financial statements.

IV - OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:To know how Accounting Standards are useful to the organizations.To know that to what extent organizations disclosed their financial activities to theirexisting and prospective investors and regulators at large through their annual reports.

V - SAMPLE SIZE AND TECHNIQUES OF ANANYSIS:To achieve the objectives; financial statements and self made questionnaire, which

were administered to Thirty two Private Sector Service Undertakings have been analyzed.


110

Other relevant information required for the purpose of the study collected from CMIEPROWESS and personal interview with Chartered Accountants. Null Hypothesis was framedto testify the significance of the change wherever required. The analysis is based on the revisedstandards and study testifies the compliance of these standards.

VI - LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

The undertakings which have been included in research may not represent thedifference of all industries prevailing in the country.The selection of Accounting Standards, i.e. first 15, may not be applicable orcompulsion to be disclosed in identified companies.

VII - EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS:

(A) ANALYSIS OF AS-1: (ACCOUNTING POLICIES)The standard deals with the disclosure of significant accounting policies followed in

preparing and presenting financial statements. Table 1 (see annexure) shows increasing trend.To test the significance of this change, following Null Hypothesis was framed:

“By and large, there is no significance difference in the change of numberof changed accounting policies among the PSSUs”. (Ho-1)

To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value of changed scores was calculatedwhich was found 11.33. The calculated value is more than the Table value of X2 =9.49 for 4d.f. at 95 % confidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected, which indicates thatawareness of this standard is increasing.

(B) ANALYSIS OF AS-2: (VALUATION OF INVENTORIES)The objective of this standard is to formulate the method of computation of cost of

inventories determine the value of closing inventory at which the inventory is to be shown inbalance sheet till it is not sold and recognized as revenue. AS-2 is not applicable toWork-in-progress arising under construction contract including directly related to servicecontract or for service providers or financial instrument held as stock-in-trade or WIP related toproducer’s inventories like livestock, agricultural and forest products, mineral oils, ores andgases. Inventories should be valued at lower of cost and net realizable value. Table- 2 (seeannexure) shows an increasing trend in the adoption of revised accounting standard. Thisindicates the growing awareness of the provisions of the revised standard. To check thesignificance of this change following Null Hypothesis was framed:

“Generally there is no significant change in the adoption of valuation methodsfor the inventories provided by the standard among the (PSSUs)” (Ho-2)

To test the stated Hypothesis, X2 value was calculated, which is found 86.83. The calculatedvalue is more than the table value which is 21.026 for 12 d.f. at 95% confidence level.Therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected. The test signifies the increasing change as thegrowing awareness of the standard among the PSSUs.


111

(C) ANALYSIS OF AS – 3: (CASH FLOW STATEMENTS)The Standard deals with the provision of information about the historical changes in

cash and cash equivalents of an enterprise by means of a cash flow statement which classifiescash flows during the period from operating, investing and financing activities. The standardrequires that cash flow from operating activities should be presented by either direct method orindirect method.

The table `3’(see annexure) shows an increasing trend in the compliance of the AS-3 asit shows an increasing trend in the use of indirect method to measure the cash flow fromoperating activities in accordance to the standard. To find out the significance of this change,following Null Hypothesis was framed:

`Generally there is no significant change in the practice of adopting the indirect method for valuing the cash flow from operating activities among the PSSUs (Ho-3)

To test the stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which is found0.082. It is less than the table value of X2 =9.488, which is 4 d.f. at 95% confidence level.Therefore, Null Hypothesis is accepted. It indicates that there is no significant change in theadoption of indirect method for operating cash flow. It is also clear that those PSSUs whichwere being using direct method had shifted to the indirect method as it is more convenient.

(D) ANALYIS OF AS-4: (CONTINGENCIES AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTERTHE BALANCE SHEET DATE)The analysis is made to check the compliance of the AS-4, which deals with the

disclosure of all contingencies as well as the event occurring after the balance sheet date, whichmay affect future liability. The analysis of compliance of AS-4 is presented in table `4’ (seeannexure). The study reveals that the undertakings under consideration have been disclosinglist of contingencies with the minute fluctuation in the percentages. To check the significance ofthis change following Null Hypothesis had been framed:

By and large, there is no significant change in disclosure of estimate ofcontingencies and events among the private sector’ (Ho – 4)

To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 0.09. It is very less than the table value of X2 =9.488 for 4 d.f. at 95% confidence level.Therefore, Null Hypothesis is accepted. It indicates that the change in the disclosure of estimateof contingencies is not significant.

(E) ANALYSIS OF AS-5 (NET PROFIT OR LOSS FOR THE PERIOD, PRIORPERIOD ITEMS AND CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING POLICIES)This standard is a disclosure base standard. Table `5’ (see annexure) shows the percent

scores of analysis for compliance of AS-5. To test application of AS-5 following NullHypothesis was tested

`Generally there is no significant change in the disclosures of the prior perioditems which are being disclosed by the companies among the private sector’(Ho-5)


112

To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 3.302. It is less than the table value of X2 =9.49 for 4 d.f. at 95% confidence level.Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted, it indicates that the change in the disclosure practiceprior period is not significant and it does not occur due to the increased awareness of thestandard.

(F) ANALYIS OF AS-6(DEPRECIATION ACCOUNTING)AS-6 states, that the management of a business can select the most appropriate method

for the computation of depreciation. A combination of more than one method is sometimesused. The statute governing an enterprise may provide the basis for computation of thedepreciation. It further states that most common methods for measuring depreciation are theStraight Line Method and the Reducing Balance Method. Following table 6 (see annexure)shows the percentage compliance of AS-6 in PSSUs. To check the significance of thisfluctuation, following Null Hypothesis was framed:

`By and large there is no significance difference noticed in the use ofdepreciation methods’ (Ho-6)

To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 0.952. Which is very less than the table value of X2 =21.026 for 12 d.f. at 95%confidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted, which indicates that there is nosignificant change in the use of depreciation methods among the companies underconsideration.

(G) ANALYSIS OF AS-7 (ACCOUNTING FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT)Accounting for long term construction contracts involves question as to when revenue

should be recognized and how to measure the revenue in the books of contractor. As the periodof construction contract is long, work of construction started in one year and is completed inanother year or after 4-5 years or so. Therefore, question arises how the profit or loss ofconstruction contract by contractor should be determined. Profit or loss may be determine onyear to year basis (based on percentage of completion) or on completion of the contract. AS-7is applicable to contractor but not to the contractee and construction or developing housingprojects. The study was not relevant regarding private sector’s service undertakings; thereforethe analysis of AS-7 has been ignored.

(H) ANALYSIS OF AS-8 (ACCOUNTING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVLOPMENT)It is mandatory from 1.4.1993. From 1.4.2003 for some companies and 1.4.2004 for all

enterprises, the AS-8 has been withdrawn as the accounting of research and development hasbeen covered by AS-26 (Intangible Assets). Now this standard is not applicable in case ofintangible assets covered by AS-14, AS-19, AS-21, AS-22, financial assets like- Cash ,ownership interest in another enterprises, intangible assets arising in insurance enterprises fromcontracts with policyholders, share issue expenses, discount allowed on issue of shares andexpenditure in respect of termination benefits. The table `7’ (see annexure) shows analysis ispercentage. In the later part of years of the study percentage disclosed is showing increasing


113

trend. To check the significance of the fluctuation in disclosure of accounting treatment,following Null Hypothesis was framed:

`Generally there is no significance difference in the number of private sectorcompanies, which are disclosing the accounting treatment of R & D cost according

to the standard.”(Ho-8)’To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 0.216. As the calculated value of X2 is less than the table value (X2 =15.507) for 8 d.f.at 95 percentage confidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted that there is nosignificant change in the adoption in the adoption of the standard.

(I) ANALYSIS OF AS-9 (REVENUE RECOGNITION)Revenue is a charge made to customers or clients for goods supplied and services

rendered it includes gross inflow of cash, receivable or other consideration arising in the courseof ordinary activities of an enterprise. AS-9 explains as to when the revenue should berecognized in profit and loss account and also states the circumstances in which revenuerecognition can be postponed. The data of table-8 (see annexure) shows that in the initial yearsthe practice of disclosing revenue recognition basis was very less but in the later years of studyit increased drastically.

(J) ANALYSIS OF AS-10 (ACCOUNTING FOR FIXED ASSETS)According to the AS-10 companies should disclose the method of valuation of the cost

of fixed asset (acquisition cost). The standard states that the financial statements of thecompany should disclose the construction amount, revalued amount and other disclosuresrequired by the standard for the better understanding of the financial statements. Thepercentage related to the analysis of AS-10 is presented in table 9(see annexure). To check thecompliance of the standard following Null Hypothesis was framed: `Generally there is no significance fluctuation in the disclosures of the methods adopted for

valuing the cost of fixed assets, among the PSSUs.”(Ho-10)’To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 8.86 for 12 d.f. at 95 percent confidence level. As the calculated value is less than thetable value of X2 which is 21.026. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted and it proves thatthere is no significant change of cost method used by the companies.

(K) ANALYSIS OF AS-11 (ACCOUNTING FOR THE EFFECTS OF CHANGESINFOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES)AS-11(revised 2003) shall be applicable in respect of accounting periods commencing

on or after 1.4.2004 and is mandatory in nature. The revised (2003) supersedes AS-11 (1994).However, accounting for transactions in foreign currencies entered into by the reportingenterprise itself or though it branches before 1.4.2004 will continue to be done as perAS-11(1994). AS-11 applies to accounting for transactions in foreign currencies, translatingthe financial statement of foreign operation-integral as well as non-integral and to theaccounting for forward exchange contracts. Table – 10 (see annexure) shows that % of


114

adopting the different provisions of the standard in regularly increasing. To justify thesignificance of this change following Null Hypothesis was framed.

`By and large there is no significant change in the practice of translation offinancial statements for the users of foreign branches among the PSSUs.’(Ho-11)’

To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 1.21 it is very less than the table value of X2 which is 9.49 for 4 d.f. at 95 percentconfidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted and it proves that there is nosignificant change in the translation of financial statements for foreign branches in spite of thepercentage change.

(L) AS-12 (ACCOUNTING FOR GOVERNMENT GRANTS)Government Grants are assistance by the Govt. in the form of cash or kind to an

enterprise in return for past or future compliance with certain conditions government assistance,which cannot be valued reasonably, is excluded from Government grants. Those transactionswith government, which cannot be distinguished from the normal trading transactions of theenterprise, are not considered as government grants. The study was not relevant regardingprivate sector’s service undertakings; therefore the analysis of AS-12 has been ignored.

(M) AS-13 (ACCOUNTING FOR INVESTMENTS)AS-13 deals with accounting for investment in the financial statements. However, as

per opinion issued by ICAI, this AS to the extent it relates to current investment is alsoapplicable to shares, debentures and other securities held as `stock in trade’ with suitablemodification. The standard deals with the aspect of investment related to its classification, cost,carrying amount or valuation, reclassification, and disclosure of investment in the financialstatements. From the table-11 (see annexure) it is clear that majority of companies are notpaying specific attention towards the compliance of standard even though it is mandatory. Tocheck the significance of this change, following Null Hypothesis was framed:`Generally, there is no significant change in the number of companies providing permanent

diminution in the value of long term investments among PSSUs.’(Ho-12)To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 13.82 it is very less than the table value of X2 which is 21.0 for 12 d.f. at 95 percentconfidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted and it proves that there isinsignificant change in the diminution for long term investment is not significant. More effortsshould be made by the ICAI to make the standard effective as per norms of the AS-13.

(N) AS-14 (ACCOUNTING FOR AMALGAMATION):Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act 1956 govern the provisions of amalgamation.

AS-14 deals with accounting to be made in the books of transferee company in case ofamalgamation the standard provides for the use of the pooling-of-interest, in case ofamalgamation, which are in the nature of merger and the purchase method. The companyshould disclose all required disclosures in the first financial statements of the company after


115

amalgamation. The detailed description according to the respective year is shown in table-12(see annexure). The result shows increasing trend in percentage of disclosure of AS-14.

(O) AS-15 (ACCOUNTING FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS IN THE FINANCIALSTATEMENTS OF EMPLOYERS):

This standard applies to retirement benefits in the form of provident fund,superannuation or pension and gratuity provided a by an employer to employees, whether inpursuance of requirements of any law or otherwise. The standard states that the companyshould disclose the accounting treatment for retirement benefits and all required disclosures.The revised AS-15 is mandatory from the accounting periods commencing on or after 1.4.2006.The study of the table 14 (see annexure) shows that, companies are showing an increasingtrend in the practice of proper accounting treatment and its disclosure according to the standard.To check the significance of this change, following Null Hypothesis was framed:`Generally, there is no significant change in the disclosure of proper accounting treatment of

retirement benefits in the financial statements of the employer among the PSSUs.’(Ho-14)To test the above stated Null Hypothesis, X2 value changed scores was calculated, which isfound 0.09 it is very less than the table value of X2 which is 9.49 for 4 d.f. at 95 percentconfidence level. Therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted and it proves that there isinsignificant change. In respect of the required disclosures companies are not sincere indisclosing them. Thus, efforts should be made to make the change as per norms of AS-15.

(VIII) CONCLUSION:From the above discussion we can conclude that Private Service Sector Undertakings

are showing insignificant progress and awareness in adopting accounting standards.Considering the face of Indian economy and corporate in this global competitive era, have a lotto improve in terms of disclosing the financial policies of the companies for the interest of thecountry and the interest groups of the companies, so as to build a healthy corporateenvironment for future growth of the company as well as the economy of the country at large.Even the most reputed companies’ disclosure policies were not quite satisfactory. So, it isnecessary that the regulatory authority has to take some serious steps to make all the importantfinancial data available to the public at large.

REFERENCES:Rawat, D.S., (2008) Students’ Guide To Accounting Standards, Taxmann Allied Services (P)Ltd., New DelhiBose A.K., Accounting Harmonization, DSA-Calcutta UniversityGupta N. Das, Accounting standard: Indian and international, sultan Chand and sons, New Delhi.Dr. Ashok K. Mohanty and Prof. Sahu, P.K., Improvement in Accounting Standards Practices inIndia under the globalization of Indian economy. Pg. 139-145.


116

Batra, G.S., (1998) Emerging Dimensions in the Development of Accounting Standards,Accounting theory and practice. New Advances, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi. pg.167-175.Verma, H.I., Garg, M.C. and Singh, K.P., `Disclosure of Accounting Standards Vis-à-visCompany characteristics: a study of Indian Corporate Sector, The Indian Journal of Commerce,Vol. L, pg. 131-138Sachdeva, Sheetal, `Compliances of Accounting Standards in Private Sector Service organizations:A Critical Appraisal’ (Ph.D. Thesis)

ANNEXURES:Table-1 (Analysis showing compliance of AS-1) (In %)

Presentation of changed Policies Number of disclosed policiesYears Changed Not

ChangedPoliciesdisclosed

AccountingTreatmentdisclosed

6 - 8 8 - 10 10-12 More

than12

2001-2002

16.33 83.67 60.54 39.42 19.75

37.55 33.87 6.87

2002-2003

18.67 81.33 59.12 41.41 18.45

39.12 35.66 7.56

2003-2004

20.00 80.00 69.98 41.56 17.56

38.96 36.64 7.59

2004-2005

26.00 74.00 70.56 20.02 15.99

39.45 33.82 9.35

2005-2006

36.67 63.33 64.56 35.27 14.41

40.88 34.36 9.88

Average 21.53 78.47 64.95 37.54 17.23

39.19 34.87 8.25

Table-2 (Analysis showing compliance of AS-2) (In %) Valuation method adopted Cost method used and disclosed

Years Lower ofC &NRV

FollowingOf AS-2

Both WAC FIFO Both other NotDisclosed

2001-2002

12.52 76.22 11.26 16.95 15.69 6.58 7.21 53.57

2002-2003

22.69 65.44 11.87 17.53 16.37 7.84 6.87 51.39

2003-200 23.19 61.99 14.82 20.68 16.67 6.25 5.26 51.14


117

42004-200

541.55 37.85 20.60 23.01 20.54 6.25 5.26 44.94

2005-2006

57.36 19.87 22.77 24.56 24.69 5.45 5.26 40.04

Average 31.45 52.27 16.26 20.55 18.79 6.47 5.97 48.21

Table `3’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 3) (In %)Years Indirect

MethodDirect

MethodNot

Disclosed2001-2002 93.3 4.3 2.4

2002-2003 93.0 4.4 2.62003-2004 94.7 3.1 2.22004-2005 94.6 3.1 2.32005-2006 94.8 2.9 2.3

Average 94.2 3.5 2.3

Table `4’: (Analysis showing compliance of AS-4) (In %)Year Contingencies

disclosed bycompanies

Disclosureof event

may effectfuture

liability

Disclosure ofestimate of

financialeffect ofC & E

Way of disclosingContingencies

---------------------------Foot note Report of approving authority

2001-2002 98.12 100 96.75 100 14.562002-2003 96.42 100 96.99 100 14.922003-2004 98.80 100 100.00 100 15.682004-2005 97.32 100 95.96 100 14.962005-2006 96.99 100 100.00 100 20.33

Average 97.53 100 97.94 100 16.09

Table - `5’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 5) (In %)Disclosure of

Net P & LAs per AS-5

ExtraordinaryItems disclosed

Prior periodItems disclosed

Change inAccounting

PolicyDisclosed


118

Year2001-2002 100 82.05 80.11 61.122002-2003 100 82.36 81.98 59.052003-2004 100 84.55 81.65 69.962004-2005 100 91.12 80.96 70.852005-2006 100 100.00 100.00 65.12

Average 100 88.02 84.94 65.22

Table - `6’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 6) (In %)Depreciation Methods used

Year

StraightLine

Method

ReducingBalanceMethod

Both Depreciation

RateDisclosed

Disclosures

2001-2002 62.76 8.11 29.13 72.45 96.972002-2003 64.02 7.11 28.87 76.12 98.552003-2004 64.65 7.56 27.79 85.09 100.002004-2005 65.88 6.35 27.77 87.58 100.002005-2006 64.88 5.45 29.67 87.65 100.00

Average 64.43 6.91 28.66 81.78 99.12

Table - `7’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 8) (In %)Percentage of

R & D DisclosedFulfillment of form B Accounting treatment

disclosed


119

Year Properlydisclosed

Notdisclosed

Properlydisclosed

Notproperlydisclosed

R&DCost to

P&L A/c

DeferredCost to

Balance Sheet2001-200

231.45 68.55 37.25 62.75 49.52 50.48

2002-2003

33.54 66.46 37.56 62.44 49.45 50.55

2003-2004

32.06 67.94 37.88 62.12 51.56 48.44

2004-2005

33.58 66.42 37.67 62.33 51.45 48.55

2005-2006

36.41 63.59 38.88 61.12 51.25 48.75

Average 33.41 66.59 37.84 62.15 50.66 49.35

Table - `8’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 9) (In %) Basis of recognition of revenue disclosed

Year Sale ofGoods

Royalty Dividend Interest

2001-2002 18.74 12.55 6.18 5.312002-2003 20.56 23.56 8.56 6.242003-2004 23.45 36.24 12.45 9.542004-2005 46.02 54.33 27.45 26.382005-2006 64.06 63.89 38.56 36.45

Average 34.58 38.11 18.64 16.78

Table - `9’ (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 10) (In %)Method of valuation used Disclosures

___________________________________Construction exp. Revalued amount

Year Cost Net ofmodvat

Other CostCompo-nents

Properlydisclosed

NotProperlydisclosed

Properlydisclosed

NotProperlydisclosed

2001-2002

6 1 . 12

31.55 7.33 41.61 48.03 51.97 48.45 51.55

2002-2003

6 1 . 35

29.22 9.43 41.23 49.06 50.94 49.13 50.87

2003-2004

6 1 . 58

32.10 6.32 41.66 52.55 47.45 50.12 49.78

2004-20 6 4 . 5 29.06 6.36 42.00 40.41 59.59 59.68 49.88


120

05 82005-20

066 9 . 56

30.64 0 55.56 71.11 28.89 51.02 48.98

Average 6 3 . 63

30.48 5.89 44.41 52.23 47.77 49.79 50.21

Table - `10 (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 11) (In %)Year Accounting

Treatment ofExchangedifference

TranslationOf financialstatements

ExchangeDifferenceIncludedIn P&L

A/c

ExchangeDifferenceAdjusted

In carryingAmount of

Fixed assets

ExchangeDifference

In respect ofForwarded

contract

2001-2002 95.27 7.89 55.55 65.65 11.542002-2003 97.46 9.12 57.22 67.24 13.562003-2004 98.56 10.51 58.29 70.13 14.242004-2005 95.12 10.25 58.78 75.05 17.452005-2006 98.45 12.62 69.45 84.56 17.49

Average 97.57 10.07 59.59 72.52 14.86

Table - `11 (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 13) (In %)Cost method

disclosedDiminution treatment Carrying

amount

Year LongTerm

Invest-ments

CurrentInvest-ments

Properlydisclosed

Notdisclosed

LongTerm

Invest-ments

CurrentInvest-ments

disclosure

2001-2002 4.22 6.25 8.33 17.63 44.56 25.54 52.532002-2003 5.15 6.66 9.88 16.44 45.23 26.69 52.342003-2004 5.36 6.67 10.25 25.96 47.33 25.58 52.262004-2005 6.99 9.36 9.56 28.56 43.45 28.41 59.182005-2006 6.14 9.12 12.06 27.35 47.33 30.11 60.58

Average 5.71 7.85 10.06 23.19 45.58 26.80 55.38

Table - `12 (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 14)


121

Year % ofCompliance

% ofDisclosure

2001-2002 25 45.002002-2003 NA NA2003-2004 55 33.332004-2005 50 65.002005-2006 50 85.00

Table - `13 (Analysis showing compliance of AS – 15)(In percentage)

Year Properaccounting

treatment &disclosures

Disclosureof

Costmethod

Disclosureof

ActuarialMethod

Disclosureof

ActuaryReport

2001-2002 91.26 26.25 0 02002-2003 93.59 29.85 0 02003-2004 94.16 31.22 0 02004-2005 94.56 32.69 2.95 02005-2006 96.55 34.22 3.66 0

Average 94.02 30.85 1.32 0

Practices and Disclosure Policies of Accounting Standards in ...

Documents

Transcript of Practices and Disclosure Policies of Accounting Standards in ...