Launch offer — 25% off with code LAUNCH-25 See plans →
Microlesson · 5-min read

CARO 2020 – Clauses (xi) to (xiv): Fraud, Nidhi Companies, Related Party, and Internal Audit

## CARO 2020 – Clause (xi): Fraud

Three aspects to cover:

AspectReporting
Fraud on or by the companyWhether any fraud has been reported during the year (by officers or employees). If yes: report nature and amount
Section 143(12) complianceWhether the auditor complied with the duty to report fraud to the Central Government
Whistle-blower complaintsWhether the auditor has considered whistle-blower complaints, if any, received by the company during the year

---

## CARO 2020 – Clause (xii): Nidhi Company

Applicable only to Nidhi Companies.

Sub-clauseRequirement
(a) Net Owned Funds to Deposits RatioMust maintain 1:20 ratio (net owned funds : deposits). For every ₹1 of net owned funds, deposits must not exceed ₹20
(b) Unencumbered Term DepositMust maintain 10% of outstanding deposits as unencumbered liquid term deposits
(c) Default in PaymentWhether there has been default in payment of interest on deposits or repayment of principal. If yes: report details

---

## CARO 2020 – Clause (xiii): Related Party Transactions

Whether all related party transactions comply with:

ProvisionRequirement
Section 177Audit Committee approval (including omnibus approval on annual basis for related party transactions)
Section 188Prior approval of Board of Directors for entering into contracts/arrangements with related parties
AS-18Proper disclosure of related party transactions in the financial statements

---

## CARO 2020 – Clause (xiv): Internal Audit System

Sub-clauseReporting
(a)Whether the company has an internal audit system commensurate with its size and nature of business
(b)Whether the reports of the internal auditor were considered by the statutory auditor

### Section 138 – Mandatory Internal Audit Thresholds

CategoryThreshold for Mandatory IA
Listed CompanyAlways mandatory
Unlisted Public CompanyPaid-up Share Capital ≥ ₹50 crore, OR Turnover ≥ ₹200 crore, OR Outstanding Borrowings ≥ ₹100 crore
Private CompanyTurnover ≥ ₹200 crore, OR Outstanding Borrowings ≥ ₹100 crore

Worked example

### Example 1

Example 1 – Fraud reporting and Section 143(12)

During the audit of Omega Ltd, the auditor discovers that the purchase manager committed a fraud of ₹40 lakh by creating fictitious vendor invoices. The auditor reported this to the Board but did not file a report with the Central Government.

What must the CARO report state under Clause (xi)?

Answer: (1) A fraud by an officer (purchase manager) of ₹40 lakh was committed during the year — nature (fictitious invoices) and amount must be stated. (2) The auditor did not comply with Section 143(12) — reporting to the Board alone is insufficient; the Central Government must also be notified. The CARO report must flag this non-compliance by the auditor.

### Example 2

Example 2 – Nidhi Company ratios

Sunrise Nidhi Ltd has net owned funds of ₹2 crore and total deposits from members of ₹50 crore. Its unencumbered term deposit is ₹3.5 crore.

Is Sunrise Nidhi compliant?

Answer:

  • Ratio test: Net owned funds ₹2 crore × 20 = ₹40 crore maximum permissible deposits. Actual deposits = ₹50 crore. Ratio violated (actual is 1:25, limit is 1:20).
  • Liquid deposit test: Required = 10% of ₹50 crore = ₹5 crore. Actual = ₹3.5 crore. Below the required 10%.

The auditor must report non-compliance under both sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (xii).

### Example 3

Example 3 – Related party and Section 177/188

Crystal Ltd entered into a contract with a director's firm for ₹5 crore of services. The transaction was approved by the Board under Section 188 but was not placed before the Audit Committee, nor disclosed in AS-18 disclosures.

What must the auditor report under Clause (xiii)?

Answer: Non-compliance with Section 177 — the Audit Committee did not approve the transaction. Non-compliance with AS-18 — disclosure was not made in the financial statements. Section 188 Board approval was obtained, so that is compliant. The auditor must report both areas of non-compliance.

### Example 4

Example 4 – Internal audit applicability

Blue Star Pvt Ltd has turnover of ₹250 crore and borrowings of ₹80 crore. Does it need internal audit under Section 138?

Answer: Yes. For private companies, Section 138 mandates internal audit if turnover ≥ ₹200 crore or borrowings ≥ ₹100 crore. Here, turnover is ₹250 crore (≥ ₹200 crore) — the first condition alone is sufficient. The auditor must report under Clause (xiv)(a) whether an internal audit system exists commensurate with the company's size.

⚠️ Common exam mistakes

  • Thinking Section 143(12) fraud reporting to the Central Government is optional if the Board is informed — both Board and Central Government must be notified; one does not substitute for the other.
  • Confusing the Nidhi ratio: students sometimes invert it. The ratio is Net Owned Funds : Deposits = 1:20 (not deposits:funds). Deposits can be up to 20x of net owned funds.
  • Treating Section 177 (Audit Committee) and Section 188 (Board) as interchangeable for related party approvals — both are independent requirements and both must be checked.
  • Missing the 'omnibus approval' concept under Section 177 — audit committees can approve related party transactions in advance on an annual (omnibus) basis, which is a valid approval mechanism.
  • Applying Section 138 internal audit thresholds to listed companies — listed companies always require internal audit regardless of any financial threshold.
  • Forgetting sub-clause (b) of Clause (xiv) — many students only check whether an IA system exists, but the auditor must also confirm that IA reports were considered during the statutory audit.
Reference: Sections 138, 143(12), 177, 188 – Companies Act, 2013; Clauses (xi)–(xiv) of CARO 2020 — Companies Act, 2013; Companies (Auditor's Report) Order, 2020; AS-18 (ICAI)
Now that you've read this — what's next?
Move from understanding → mastery in 3 clicks. Each option below picks up from this lesson's topic.
Start 15-min diagnostic