31386 paragraphs found
Using audit evidence obtained during an interim period (Ref: Para. 22) …
In some circumstances, the auditor may determine that it is effective to perform substantive procedures at an interim date, and to compare and reconcile information concerning the balance at the period end with the comparable information at the interim …
Performing substantive procedures at an interim date without undertaking additional procedures at a later date increases the risk that the auditor will not detect misstatements that may exist at the period end. This risk increases as the remaining period …
Factors such as the following may influence whether to perform substantive analytical procedures with respect to the period between the interim date and the period end: Whether the period end balances of the particular classes of transactions or account …
When the auditor concludes that the planned nature, timing, or extent of substantive procedures covering the remaining period need to be modified as a result of unexpected misstatements detected at an interim date, such modification may include extending …
The auditor cannot assume that an instance of fraud or error is an isolated occurrence. Therefore, the consideration of how the detection of a misstatement affects the assessed risks of material misstatement is important in determining whether the …
The auditor’s judgement as to what constitutes sufficient appropriate audit evidence is influenced by such factors as the following: Significance of the potential misstatement in the assertion and the likelihood of its having a material effect, …