10-03-2009, 01:18 AM
Dear,
It may be a permanent difference of opinion as you pointed. But no where in law has stated that certification provides absolute assurance. however in case of audit, all know, gives moderate / reasonable assurance.
If an asset is revalued, then all its acc. depreciation is reversed at the time of revaluation(all accounting guys would very well know) in the books of accounts.
I cant understand why the Rule is requiring to ensure that the value of assets taken over shall be reduced by depreciation charged on consistent basis.
It is so simple like 1+1=2 When market value of asset is available at the date of issuance of shares then what is the question / reason of reducing the value of asset by charging depreciation on consistent basis.
If you people think, i am debating, i then prefer to close this topic at my end because no intention (of unreasonable debate) is here but only to gain / share and improve knowledge.
Would that it not be a permanent difference in our opinions.
Regards,
*
It may be a permanent difference of opinion as you pointed. But no where in law has stated that certification provides absolute assurance. however in case of audit, all know, gives moderate / reasonable assurance.
If an asset is revalued, then all its acc. depreciation is reversed at the time of revaluation(all accounting guys would very well know) in the books of accounts.
I cant understand why the Rule is requiring to ensure that the value of assets taken over shall be reduced by depreciation charged on consistent basis.
It is so simple like 1+1=2 When market value of asset is available at the date of issuance of shares then what is the question / reason of reducing the value of asset by charging depreciation on consistent basis.
If you people think, i am debating, i then prefer to close this topic at my end because no intention (of unreasonable debate) is here but only to gain / share and improve knowledge.
Would that it not be a permanent difference in our opinions.
Regards,
*
