--- title: "Edition No. 19 | 8 October 2026 | BNPS and Associates LLP" url: "https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026" description: "Highlights: ▸ NFRA releases Second Audit Practice Toolkit focused on ROMM and Revenue Risk Assessment — audit teams should benchmark risk documentation again..." --- # Edition No. 19 \| 8 October 2026 Written by: **[CA Chintan Patel](https://bnpsca.com/partner/ca-chintan-patel)** \| Topic: **Board Members** ![Edition No. 19 | 8 October 2026](https://imageproxy.inlancer.in/pr:sharp/f:webp/rs:fit:1200:0/g:sm/plain/https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6ac737d8b39b0-480-F-733500413-Frkh.jpg)08-10-2026 Highlights: ▸ NFRA releases Second Audit Practice Toolkit focused on ROMM and Revenue Risk Assessment — audit teams should benchmark risk documentation against this framework before new engagements begin. ▸ Two Supreme Court PFUTP verdicts: intent must be proven to establish fraud (RIL v. SEBI — ₹447 crore disgorgement quashed), but diversion of preferential-issue funds from disclosed objects is fraud that shareholders cannot ratify away. ▸ ICAI proposes that government consultancy tenders up to ₹5 crore be reserved for smaller CA firms with lower net worth — a structural change that could reshape government audit mandates if adopted. **—** **CHINTAN'S PERSPECTIVE** | ![](https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6872083e8d605-11.png) **Chintan N. Patel** Partner – Financial Reporting & Advisory *B N P S And Associates LLP* | *Five developments this week map the same terrain from different entry points: the space between what is technically permissible and what survives regulatory scrutiny is shrinking. NFRA’s second Audit Practice Toolkit — focused on Risk of Material Misstatement and revenue, the areas where audit failures are most consequential — signals that quality expectations for small and medium practitioners are no longer aspirational. Two Supreme Court rulings on PFUTP Regulations define fraud more precisely than before: regulatory breach is not fraud, but deliberate concealment of how investors’ money was used is — and no subsequent vote of shareholders can undo it. SEBI’s second surveillance system raises the probability that statistical anomalies in listed-company disclosures will be detected automatically and early. ICAI’s proposal to reserve government consultancy tenders up to ₹5 crore for smaller firms addresses a structural gap in how the profession participates in public-sector work. The direction of travel is consistent: higher standards, better disclosure, and diminishing tolerance for the gap between what is filed and what is true.* | |---|---| **—** **TOP DEVELOPMENTS** **01** **AUDIT / NFRA** **NFRA Releases Second Audit Practice Toolkit Focusing on Risk of Material Misstatement and Revenue Risk Assessment; Targeted at Small and Medium Practitioners** **WHY IT MATTERS** *NFRA’s toolkit sequence — the first covered general audit quality; the second targets ROMM and revenue risk specifically — reflects the regulator’s own inspection findings on where audit failures are most concentrated. Revenue recognition remains the single most cited area of deficiency in NFRA audit quality reviews.* The National Financial Reporting Authority published its second Audit Practice Toolkit in September 2026, following the first toolkit released in November 2025. The second toolkit focuses specifically on Risk of Material Misstatement (ROMM) assessment and revenue risk — areas consistently identified in NFRA’s audit quality inspection findings as inadequately documented by practitioners. It provides structured guidance on identifying, assessing and documenting ROMM at the financial-statement and assertion levels, with particular attention to revenue recognition as a significant risk area. The toolkit includes worked examples, documentation templates and checklists calibrated for use by small and medium practitioners (SMPs), who form the majority of the auditor pool for listed and public-interest entities in India. | **PRACTICAL IMPLICATION** Engagement partners should benchmark their current ROMM documentation against the NFRA toolkit’s framework before commencing new engagements. Where existing risk assessment workpapers do not demonstrate explicit linkage between identified ROMMs, revenue-recognition judgements and responsive audit procedures, they should be revisited. NFRA inspections for listed entities increasingly focus on the quality of documentation, not merely whether procedures were performed. | |---| **02** **FRAUD / RISK & CONTROL** **Supreme Court (RIL v. SEBI, 2026 INSC 585): Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations Requires Proof of Deceptive Intent — Cannot Be Inferred from Every Regulatory Breach; ₹447 Crore Disgorgement Order Quashed** **WHY IT MATTERS** *This ruling materially redefines the scope of SEBI’s fraud-finding powers and the standard of proof required — prior enforcement practice that treated serious regulatory failures as tantamount to fraud no longer has judicial support.* The Supreme Court, in Reliance Industries Limited v. SEBI (2026 INSC 585), set aside SEBI’s fraud finding and ₹447.27 crore disgorgement order arising from the 2007 RPL Futures Trading case. The Court held that fraud under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 cannot be inferred merely from a regulatory breach, however serious. SEBI must prove that the conduct was deceptive, manipulative or fraudulent in character, involving intent to deceive or defraud. The Court also held that SEBI cannot exercise “unfettered powers” to characterise non-disclosure or irregularity as fraud: the elements of fraud under PFUTP must be established through cogent evidence. The ruling reshapes SEBI enforcement practice across listed-company investigations beyond the specific facts of the RIL case. | **PRACTICAL IMPLICATION** Listed companies and their audit committees should reassess outstanding SEBI investigations and show-cause notices where a fraud characterisation is grounded in disclosure irregularities or position-limit violations without demonstrated deceptive intent. Legal strategy in pending SAT and court proceedings should factor in this ruling. Boards should note that the ruling does not eliminate SEBI’s fraud-finding power — it raises the evidentiary standard. Robust contemporaneous documentation of business rationale for significant transactions remains critical. | |---| **03** **FRAUD / FINANCIAL REPORTING** **Supreme Court: Diversion of Preferential-Issue Proceeds to Undisclosed Purposes Violates PFUTP Regulations; Post-Facto Shareholder Ratification Has No Curative Effect — ₹70 Lakh Penalty Restored** **WHY IT MATTERS** *This ruling directly affects the obligations of statutory auditors certifying use of preferential-allotment proceeds and independent directors approving preferential issues — the disclosure made at the time of the fund-raise is the binding obligation; what happens after cannot undo what was concealed at the moment of the issue.* The Supreme Court held that a company’s diversion of preferential-issue proceeds to purposes not disclosed in the Explanatory Statement to the EOGM constitutes fraud under SEBI’s PFUTP Regulations. The company had used funds from the preferential allotment for inter-corporate loans and equity investments — neither disclosed as an intended use of proceeds. The company argued that subsequent shareholder ratification absolved it of liability. The Court rejected this: fraud under PFUTP cannot be cured by shareholders voting to ratify a diversion after the fact, because the investor-protection purpose of the disclosure requirement is frustrated at the moment of the misstatement, not at the moment of discovery. The Securities Appellate Tribunal’s order setting aside SEBI’s ₹70 lakh penalty was reversed. | **PRACTICAL IMPLICATION** Statutory auditors certifying use of preferential-allotment proceeds must verify alignment between the disclosed objects of the issue and actual deployment of funds — and document that verification explicitly in working papers. Independent directors and audit committees must hold management to the disclosed objects at the time of approval; a post-deployment ratification is not a defence available to the company or its fiduciaries. Related-party transactions funded from preferential allotments require particular scrutiny. | |---| **04** **PROFESSIONAL UPDATES** **ICAI Proposes That Government Consultancy Tenders Up to ₹5 Crore Be Reserved for CA Firms With Lower Net Worth; Draft Proposals Under Development** **WHY IT MATTERS** *If adopted, this policy would fundamentally rebalance access to government audit and consultancy mandates — a structural change with direct revenue implications for mid-size and smaller CA firms that currently cannot compete on net-worth pre-qualification criteria alone.* The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has proposed to the Government that government consultancy and audit tenders valued up to ₹5 crore be reserved for CA firms that do not meet the higher net worth eligibility thresholds that currently govern such tenders. The proposal, under active development by the ICAI Council as of late September 2026, is intended to address the structural disadvantage faced by smaller and mid-size CA firms in government tendering, where high net worth or turnover pre-qualification criteria effectively limit competition to a small number of large practices. ICAI is working on the detailed draft proposal, including the definition of ‘smaller firms’ for this purpose and the operational mechanics of the reservation framework. | **PRACTICAL IMPLICATION** Smaller and mid-size CA firms should monitor this proposal closely and engage with regional ICAI branches to provide input on eligibility criteria. The ₹5 crore threshold, if adopted, would open a substantial segment of government audit and advisory work to wider competition. Firms should begin assessing their readiness to participate in government tenders — including firm-profile documentation, empanelment credentials and service-capability statements — in anticipation of the framework being notified. | |---| **05** **RISK & CONTROL** **SEBI Announces Development of Second Surveillance System to Identify Fraud and Manipulation Among Listed Companies — AI-Assisted Real-Time Monitoring Layer Beyond Existing ESM/GSM Framework** **WHY IT MATTERS** *Listed companies that have relied on the interval between a regulatory anomaly and its detection should recalibrate — the detection timeline is shortening, and the surveillance is increasingly automated.* SEBI’s Executive Director, speaking in October 2026, announced that SEBI is developing a second surveillance system for listed companies, designed to identify entities involved in manipulation, fraud or systematic non-compliance through enhanced real-time data analytics. The existing Enhanced Surveillance Measure (ESM) and Graded Surveillance Measure (GSM) frameworks, which operate on periodic review cycles and respond to price/volume anomalies and governance red flags, will be supplemented by a system capable of identifying structural patterns in corporate disclosures, trading behaviour and related-party networks. The announcement follows SEBI’s broader enforcement intensification in FY 2026-27, including increased use of AI-assisted pattern recognition in insider trading and market manipulation investigations. | **PRACTICAL IMPLICATION** Listed-company Audit Committees should treat this as a prompt to review the adequacy of disclosure controls, related-party transaction documentation and board-oversight processes. Finance teams should assess whether existing disclosure practices are likely to flag as statistically anomalous under enhanced surveillance. Practices advising listed companies should factor increased automated surveillance into client risk assessments and advise boards to pre-emptively review any areas of structural opacity in their regulatory filings. | |---| | **— THIS MATTERS MORE THAN IT APPEARS** *Two Supreme Court rulings on PFUTP Regulations delivered within the same period draw boundaries around the same word from opposite directions. In Reliance Industries v. SEBI (2026 INSC 585), the Court held that fraud cannot be inferred from every regulatory breach — SEBI must demonstrate deceptive intent and conduct, not merely a violation. The second ruling, on diversion of preferential-issue proceeds, points in the opposite direction: a company that used funds from a preferential allotment for undisclosed purposes violated PFUTP Regulations regardless of subsequent shareholder ratification — the disclosure at the time of the fund-raise is the moment that governs. Taken together, the two verdicts establish that the fraud-versus-breach distinction is not a technicality: it requires courts to examine what the company told investors, what it did with their money, and whether the gap between the two was communicated or concealed. For statutory auditors reviewing fund-utilisation certifications and audit committees approving preferential allotments, the practical question is whether documented procedures demonstrate that they sought to close that same gap.* | |---| **—** **AI WATCH** | SEBI’s announcement of a second AI-assisted surveillance system for listed companies is one node in a global regulatory shift toward real-time automated market monitoring. IOSCO’s 2026 Fintech and Digitalisation Report found that regulators in 38 of its 54 member jurisdictions are now actively deploying machine-learning models for surveillance: pattern recognition in trading data, cross-referencing of related-party disclosures with beneficial ownership databases, and automated flagging of financial statements that deviate statistically from sector benchmarks. The implication for listed-company finance teams and audit committees is direct: AI surveillance does not apply judgment to whether a disclosure is technically sufficient — it flags statistical anomalies and lets investigators decide what to do with them. Entities that have relied on disclosure that is technically compliant but structurally opaque should assume it will be flagged. The question is not whether AI will find something but whether management can explain what it finds. | |---| **—** **QUOTE OF THE DAY** | *“Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody.”* — AGATHA CHRISTIE | |---| **ABOUT BNPS** B N P S And Associates LLP is a firm of Chartered Accountants having offices at Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Raichur, Rajkot. The firm provides professional services in the areas of audit, assurance, financial reporting, taxation, risk advisory, due diligence and related professional services. For details refer, [www.bnpsca.com](http://www.bnpsca.com). **Disclaimer:** This publication is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as professional advice. Readers should seek professional guidance before acting on any information contained herein. - Tags: - [Audit Committee](#) - [Board](#) - [NFRA](#) - [Ind AS](#) - [Governance](#) - [Risk](#) ![CA Chintan Patel](https://imageproxy.inlancer.in/pr:sharp/f:webp/rs:fit:200:0/g:sm/plain/https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6872083e8d605-11.png)About the Author #### CA Chintan Patel Ahmedabad Ind AS Advisory Statutory Audit of Listed Companies ESG,BRSR [View Profile ](https://bnpsca.com/partner/ca-chintan-patel) #### Share this on social media : [ Share ](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ Tweet ](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ Post ](https://vk.com/share.php?url=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ post ](https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ Share ](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ post ](https://reddit.com/submit?url=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) [ pin ](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-19-8-october-2026) ## You May Also Like Similar Articles You Might Find Interesting [ ![Edition No. 1 | 13 June 2026](https://imageproxy.inlancer.in/pr:sharp/f:webp/rs:fit:500:0/g:sm/plain/https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6a7aa5f36c663-Images-1.jpeg) ](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-1-13-june-2026 "Blog Link")13-06-2026 #### [Edition No. 1 \| 13 June 2026](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-1-13-june-2026 "Edition No. 1 | 13 June 2026") By Chintan N. Patel [Continue Reading](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-1-13-june-2026) [ ![Edition No. 2 | 14 June 2026](https://imageproxy.inlancer.in/pr:sharp/f:webp/rs:fit:500:0/g:sm/plain/https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6a7aa73b97dab-Images-2.jpeg) ](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-2-14-june-2026 "Blog Link")14-06-2026 #### [Edition No. 2 \| 14 June 2026](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-2-14-june-2026 "Edition No. 2 | 14 June 2026") By Chintan N. Patel [Continue Reading](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-2-14-june-2026) [ ![Edition No. 3 | 15 June 2026](https://imageproxy.inlancer.in/pr:sharp/f:webp/rs:fit:500:0/g:sm/plain/https://bnpsca.com/public/assets/upload/images/original/6a7aaa5d87c11-Images-3.jpeg) ](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-3-15-june-2026 "Blog Link")15-06-2026 #### [Edition No. 3 \| 15 June 2026](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-3-15-june-2026 "Edition No. 3 | 15 June 2026") By Chintan N. Patel [Continue Reading](https://bnpsca.com/insight/edition-no-3-15-june-2026) ### Any Questions After Reading? We’re happy to clarify any doubts and advise you about your business [ Get Expert Guidance ](https://bnpsca.com/contact-us) '); $(this).remove(); }); });