This page sits where a case studies page normally would, and is written differently on purpose. Everything below describes what we would do when a client arrives in a given position, the standard the work would be held to, and the target we would set. Nothing here reports a completed engagement, and no outcome is claimed as achieved.
Six positions, and the method that would follow
A credit ledger that no longer agrees with the books
The position. The annual return is due, and the input tax credit taken in GSTR-3B across the year does not agree with GSTR-2B or with the purchase ledger. Nobody can say when the divergence started or which of the three is right.
The method. Rebuild the credit position month by month from source: GSTR-2B against the purchase register against the ledger, differences classified by cause rather than netted. Separate recoverable from irrecoverable, apply Rule 42 and Rule 43 apportionment where exempt supplies exist, isolate credit blocked under Section 17(5), and identify credit past its availment window.
Standard and target. Every difference explained by cause, never by balancing figure. The target is a GSTR-9C reconciliation an officer can follow from source document to reported figure without a supplementary question, and a monthly control that stops the gap reopening.
A reassessment notice for a year the team has forgotten
The position. A notice arrives under Section 148A about a transaction three or four years old. The staff who processed it have left, and the file is a folder of scanned bank statements.
The method. Establish the facts before drafting anything: what the transaction was, what evidence exists, how it was reported at the time. Reconcile it to the return, to Form 26AS and to the annual information statement, so the mismatch that triggered the notice is identified precisely. Then a reply on the record with annexures, addressing the information relied upon rather than its characterisation.
Standard and target. Faceless proceedings are decided on the written submission, so it is drafted to be read cold by someone with no history with the file. The target is disposal at the earliest stage the facts allow, with a record built so that an appeal, if needed, does not start from nothing.
A benchmark that has to survive a transfer pricing officer
The position. A captive services entity has charged its overseas parent at a mark-up chosen years ago and never revisited. Form 3CEB is due and the underlying documentation is thin.
The method. Characterise the entity honestly on functions, assets and risks before selecting a method. Rebuild the operating cost base and test what is properly excluded. Run a fresh comparables search with documented acceptance and rejection reasons, because a search nobody can reproduce is not a defence. Maintain Rule 10D documentation and prepare the accountant’s report from it.
Standard and target. The file should let a reader reconstruct every step: the search, the filters, the rejections, the adjustments. The target is a position the company can hold consistently across years, since inconsistency is what invites the reference.
Buying a company on numbers nobody has tested
The position. A term sheet has been signed on a multiple of reported profit. The seller’s accounts are unaudited or audited lightly, and the buyer is a month from committing funds.
The method. Quality of earnings first: strip out non-recurring items, owner-linked costs and revenue recognised early. Normalise working capital across a full cycle rather than at the measurement date. Test the tax position separately, covering direct tax, GST credit and withholding exposure, and quantify what is likely, possible and remote. Then translate the findings into price, structure and indemnity language.
Standard and target. Findings are reported with the workings attached and the limitations stated, including what we could not test and why. The target is a buyer who knows which risks are being accepted, at what price, and which are being pushed back across the table.
A month-end close that keeps slipping
The position. Management accounts arrive three weeks after month-end, the board pack is assembled by hand, and the cash forecast is a spreadsheet only one person understands.
The method. Fix the calendar first: cut-off dates, accrual and provision policies, a written close checklist with an owner against each line. Automate the mechanical reconciliations so effort moves to the judgemental ones. Build reporting from the ledger, so the management figure and the statutory figure are the same. Maintain a compliance calendar beside it.
Standard and target. Reported numbers must reconcile to the general ledger on request, without a bridging schedule living outside the system. The target is a stable close within an agreed number of working days each month, reached by shortening the process rather than working later.
A valuation that a regulator and an investor will both read
The position. A priced round is being negotiated with a non-resident investor, and the company needs a valuation that satisfies the tax rules and the exchange control pricing requirement while remaining commercially credible.
The method. Establish the purpose and the applicable basis of value first, because purpose drives approach. Build the projections with management, then challenge them against capacity, pipeline and history. Apply the method the rules permit, state the discount rate and its components, and set out sensitivities rather than a point value dressed as certainty.
Standard and target. Assumptions, method and limitations appear on the face of the report. Work requiring a registered signatory is performed and signed by a professional holding the relevant registration. The target is a report that holds up in diligence two years later, in front of the next investor.
Standards and method
The same controls apply to every engagement above and to the services not illustrated here.
Review layers
Preparation and review are separated. The preparer builds the file; a second person reviews the reasoning, the source agreement and the arithmetic, and records that review. A deliverable carrying a technical position or an external filing takes a third look, focused only on whether the position is supportable and whether the alternative reading was considered and rejected on stated grounds.
Who signs what
Deliverables are issued in the name of the firm, with a named engagement contact responsible for the work and available to explain it. Work requiring a registered signatory is performed and signed by a professional holding the relevant registration. Where an engagement needs a signature the firm cannot supply, that is said at scoping and the work declined or referred.
Documentation and working papers
Each engagement has one indexed file holding the source documents, the request that asked for them, the computations, the review evidence and the issued deliverable. The test is reconstruction: someone who was not on the engagement should be able to open the file and rebuild the conclusion. Working papers are retained for the period set in the engagement letter, which is what makes a position defensible years later.
Client data
Access is taken to the minimum systems the scope requires, on named individual accounts rather than shared credentials, and withdrawn when the engagement closes. Records stay in the engagement repository and are not circulated between personal accounts. We hold no security certification and claim none; our handling of personal data is set out in the Privacy Policy so you can assess it directly.
Quality control before release
- Figures agreed to source records, each source referenced in the working papers
- Every provision, rule or standard cited checked as current at a stated date, printed on the deliverable
- Computations re-performed independently of the preparer
- Scope exclusions and limitations restated in the deliverable, not only in the engagement letter
- Reviewer sign-off recorded before anything leaves the firm
Nothing on this page describes a completed engagement or a realised outcome. Targets are standards set for the work, not guaranteed results.
Apply the method to your position
The fastest way to test whether this method fits is to put a live problem in front of it. Bring the notice, the reconciliation, the term sheet or the close that will not stabilise, and you will get a written scope setting out how it would be handled and what it would cost.