10-05-2004, 08:47 PM
Salam
Yeah I agree with u Mr. Moon. This is yet another example of divergence between the reporting requirements of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and IAS. There were many other such instances like the differences between segment reporting of sales of segments under IAS 14 and 4th schedule, the difference in treatments of revaluation surplus under section 235 (Old) and IAS 16 etc. I think SECP has now realized these discrepancies and the recent revisions in the Companies Ordinance reflect their intention to harmonize such reporting requirements. And yeah as the framework to IAS says local laws will override the requirements of IAS (Where they contradict each other), we have no optionâ¦..
<font face='Century Gothic'></font id='Century Gothic'><font size=4></font id=size4><font color=blue></font id=blue><font color=beige></font id=beige><font color=brown></font id=brown><font color=teal></font id=teal><font color=blue></font id=blue>
Idrees
Yeah I agree with u Mr. Moon. This is yet another example of divergence between the reporting requirements of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and IAS. There were many other such instances like the differences between segment reporting of sales of segments under IAS 14 and 4th schedule, the difference in treatments of revaluation surplus under section 235 (Old) and IAS 16 etc. I think SECP has now realized these discrepancies and the recent revisions in the Companies Ordinance reflect their intention to harmonize such reporting requirements. And yeah as the framework to IAS says local laws will override the requirements of IAS (Where they contradict each other), we have no optionâ¦..
<font face='Century Gothic'></font id='Century Gothic'><font size=4></font id=size4><font color=blue></font id=blue><font color=beige></font id=beige><font color=brown></font id=brown><font color=teal></font id=teal><font color=blue></font id=blue>
Idrees
