Wednesday 14 October 2015
Thursday 20 August 2015
My internship at Deloitte..!!
COMPANY PROFILE
Introduction to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, usually referred to as Deloitte, is one of the Big 4
accountancy firms (other firms are PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, and KPMG).
Deloitte is considered as the second largest professional services firm in the world, featuring
1,82,000 employees in more than 150 countries proffering tax, audit, enterprise risk, consulting,
and financial advisory services. The company holds its headquarters in Paramount Plaza, New
York City, New York, and Midtown Manhattan.
Deloitte is one of the biggest auditing and accounting firm world wide that is head quartered in
New York. Deloitte was formed in the year 1845 and is now expanded over throughout the world
in nearly 150 countries. Deloitte specializes in not only tax and auditing but also consulting,
financial and advisory services and has been consistently awarded second in the top ten auditing
companies for two years in a row.
Global Structure
For several years, the organization and its network of firms was legally organized as a Swiss
Verein. On July 31, 2010, the members of the Verein became a part of the Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company. Each of these member firms included in its
global network remains an individual and independent legal entity, entitled to the laws and
professional policies of a specific country or countries in which it functions.
Origin of the Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, commonly referred to as Deloitte, is the largest professional
services network in the world by revenue and by the number of professionals. Deloitte
provides audit, tax, consulting, enterprise risk and financial advisory services with more than
200,000 professionals in over 150 countries. In FY 2013–14, it earned a record $34.2 billion
USD in revenues.
Deloitte is one of the "Big Four" professional services firms along with PwC, EY, and KPMG.
Its global headquarters are located in the United States.
In 2012, Accountancy Age reported that, in the UK, Deloitte had the largest number of clients
amongst FTSE 250 companies. Bloomberg Business has consistently named Deloitte as the best
place to launch a career.
In 1845, William Welch Deloitte opened an office in Basinghall Street in London. Deloitte was
the first person to be appointed an independent auditor of a public company, namely the Great
Western Railway. He went on to open an office in New York in 1880.
In 1896, Charles Waldo Haskins and Elijah Watt Sells formed Haskins & Sells in New York. It
was later described as "the first major auditing firm to be established in the country by American
rather than British accountants."
In 1898, George Touche established an office in London and then, in 1900, joined John
Ballantine Niven in establishing the firm of Touche Niven in the Johnston Building at 30 Broad
Streetin New York. At the time, there were fewer than 500 CPAs practicing in the United States,
but the new era of income taxes was soon to generate enormous demand for accounting
On 1 March 1933, Colonel Arthur Hazelton Carter, President of the New York State Society of
Certified Public Accountants and Managing Partner of Haskins & Sells, testified before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. Carter helped convince Congress that independent
audits should be mandatory for public companies
In 1947, Detroit accountant George Bailey, then president of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, launched his own organization. The new entity enjoyed such a positive start
that in less than a year, the partners merged with Touche Niven and A. R. Smart to form Touche,
Niven, Bailey & Smart. Headed by Bailey, the organization grew rapidly, in part by creating a
dedicated management consulting function. It also forged closer links with organizations
established by the co-founder of Touche Niven, George Touche: the Canadian organization Ross
and the British organization George A. Touche. In 1960, the firm was renamed Touche, Ross,
Bailey & Smart, becoming Touche Ross in 1969. In 1968 Nobuzo Tohmatsu formed Tohmatsu
Aoki & Co, a firm based in Japan that was to become part of the Touche Ross network in
1975. In 1972 Robert Trueblood, Chairman of Touche Ross, led the committee responsible for
recommending the establishment of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. He led the
expansion of Touche Ross in that era.
In 1989, Deloitte Haskins & Sells merged with Touche Ross in the USA to form Deloitte &
Touche. The merged firm was led jointly by J. Michael Cook and Edward A. Kangas. Led by the
UK partnership, a smaller number of Deloitte Haskins & Sells member firms rejected the merger
with Touche Ross and shortly thereafter merged with Coopers & Lybrand to form Coopers &
Lybrand Deloitte (later to merge with Price Waterhouse to become PwC). Some member firms
of Touche Ross also rejected the merger with Deloitte Haskins & Sells and merged with other
At the time of the US-led mergers to form Deloitte & Touche, the name of the international firm
was a problem, because there was no worldwide exclusive access to the names "Deloitte" or
"Touche Ross" – key member firms such as Deloitte in the UK and Touche Ross in Australia had
not joined the merger. The name DRT International was therefore chosen, referring to Deloitte,
Ross and Tohmatsu. In 1993, the international firm was renamed Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to
reflect the contribution from the Japanese firm, as well as agreements to use both of the names
Deloitte and Touche.
In 1995, the partners of Deloitte & Touche decided to create Deloitte & Touche Consulting
Group (now known as Deloitte Consulting).
In 2000, Deloitte acquired Eclipse to add Internet design-based solutions to its consulting
capabilities. Eclipse was later separated into Deloitte Online and Deloitte Digital.
In 2002, Arthur Andersen's UK practice, the firm's largest practice outside the US, agreed to
merge with Deloitte's UK practice. Andersen's practices in Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Belgium, Mexico, Brazil and Canada also agreed to merge with Deloitte. The spinoff of Deloitte
France's consulting division led to the creation of Ineum Consulting.
In 2009, Deloitte purchased the North American Public Service practice
of BearingPoint (formerly KPMG Consulting) after it filed for bankruptcy protection. The firm
also took over the UK property consultants Drivers Jonas in January 2010.
In 2011, Deloitte acquired DOMANI Sustainability Consulting and Clear Carbon Consulting in
order to expand its sustainability service offerings.
In January 2012, Deloitte announced the acquisition of Übermind, Inc., an innovative mobile
agency. The acquisition is Deloitte's first entrance into the mobile application field.
In November 2012, Deloitte acquired Recombinant Data Corporation, a company specializing
in data warehousing and clinical intelligence solutions, and launched Recombinant by
Deloitte. In February 2013 Recombinant by Deloitte merged with an internal informatics unit
(Deloitte Health Informatics) and launched Converge HEALTH by Deloitte.
On 11 January 2013, Deloitte acquired substantially all of the business of Monitor Group, the
strategy consulting firm founded by Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, after
Monitor filed for bankruptcy protection.
Deloitte, the Brand name
Deloitte is one of the best preferred brands to work with. Deloitte has hundreds of professionals
working throughout the world as separate identities, but still belonging to Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited or DTTL, which is a UK company limited by agreement.
The company has achieved great success since its inception and continues to do so with hard
work and total dedication to client and customer satisfaction. Spread in over 150 countries world
wide, Deloitte has dedicated staffs that puts in their best efforts in order to provide the best
accounting and audit services. Their main aim is to provide excellent services to their customers
and clients and they have put maximum efforts in attaining it too.
Deloitte values its reputation and makes sure that they provide with great financial services and
practice responsible business practices when dealing with their clients. The shared value across
the Deloitte companies all over the world is what makes this company the much preferred choice
for many people as not only aims at providing excellence in all of the services provided by them,
but also make sure their services are delivered as per the clients expectations.
Deloitte provides audit and enterprise risk services, tax, financial advisory services, strategy,
risk, assurance and consulting services in various industries like health care, banking and
securities, automotives, power and u utilities, real estate, retail, media, life science, insurance and
Corporate Responsibility
Deloitte has incorporated a “green” corporate responsibility where the outcome benefits not only
the environment but also the company too.
Awards and Recognition
Deloitte has been on the Fortune’s list in the “Best 100 companies to work for” for the 12th time
in a row. Deloitte has been ranked in the top ten best places to work for working mothers.
Deloitte has been named one of the Top Accounting Firms by Accounting Today, 2011 top 100
Deloitte has received the Sloan Award in 2011 for Business Excellence in Workplace
Vision, values & strategy
Deloitte aspires to be the standard of excellence, the first choice of the most sought-after
clients and talent.
In pursuit of that aspiration, we are mindful of our role in society, our obligation to our
organization and its customers, and our responsibility as employers. We aim high,
confident that our daily efforts will come together exponentially to benefit a world that
needs continuous infusions of integrity, business acumen, innovation, enthusiasm,
thoughtfulness, and most of all, meaningful actions.
When member firms' clients succeed and grow, capitalizing on opportunities and
overcoming challenges, economies prosper. When those clients implement new ideas and
enhance the quality of their offerings, consumers profit. And when those clients operate
ethically and adopt environmentally friendly processes, society thrives.
Deloitte's mission is to influence those activities through leadership, insight, expertise,
problem-solving skills, and deep knowledge of our globalized marketplace. Doing so
demands teamwork, working together across geographic, functional, and business
This multifaceted, inclusive approach is, perhaps, our greatest strength. The people who
represent Deloitte come from all corners of the globe, bringing a tremendous variety of
skills and backgrounds. Yet, they function As One, aligned with our vision and shared
values that are appreciated by clients and talent alike.
Shared values
Our Shared Values bind the people of the Deloitte member firms together, providing the
basis for trusting one another and helping enable the network to achieve its vision.
We believe nothing is more important than our reputation. That's why we are committed
to sustainable, responsible business practices. Behaving with the highest levels of
integrity is fundamental to who we are.
Outstanding value to markets and clients
We play a critical role in helping both the financial markets and our member firm clients
operate more effectively. We consider this role a privilege, and we know it requires
constant vigilance and unrelenting commitment.
Commitment to each other
We believe our culture of borderless collegiality gives us a competitive advantage, so we
work hard to nurture and preserve it. We go to extraordinary lengths to support our
Strength from cultural diversity
Both member firm clients and our people benefit from multidimensional thinking.
Bringing together individuals of different backgrounds, cultures, and thinking styles helps
clients rise above complex business challenges, and enables our people to develop into
better professionals and leaders.
Board Of Directors
Deloitte & Touche Board Members
Name (Connections) Title
Joseph Ucuzoglu Chairman of The Board and Chief Executive Officer
Deborah DeHaas Vice Chairman and Midwest Regional Managing Partner
Tom Captain Vice-Chairman and Global of US Aerospace & Defense
Leader
Nick Tommasino Vice Chairman and Advisory Partner
Other Board Members On Board Members
Name (Connections) Type of Board Members Primary Company
Robert O'Brien Vice Chairman Canadian REIT
Harry Raduege Jr. Unit Chairman Cohen Group, Inc.
Stephen Van Arsdell Member of the Board of
Directors
Gareth Taylor Member of the Board of
Directors
Theresa Porch Member of the Board of
Directors
Wayne Withrow Member of the Board of
Directors
James Rothman Ph.D. Member of Advisory Board Genprex, Inc.
Carl Novina M.D.,
Member of Advisory Board Marina Biotech, Inc.
Roger Kornberg Ph.D. Member of Advisory Board Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
Punit Renjen Member of the Board of
Directors
Robin Buchanan Member of the Board of
Directors
Gregory Weaver Member of the Board of
Directors
With expectations of them continuing to increase, boards can take several actions to govern more
effectively. Indian boards must move away from being a rubber stamp to being a strategic asset
for the company. They need to set the tone from top in promoting a transparent culture that
promotes effective dialogues among the directors, senior management, and various function and
risk managers. Boards should look beyond the ‘old boy network’ and select directors with
individual areas of expertise, and invest on an ongoing basis on their formal and informal
education. Independent directors should significantly contribute to the functioning of the board
through requisite understanding of the company and the business. Boards must take a hard look
at its own performance evaluation and enable continuous feedback and communication cycle.
Effective boards build capabilities within themselves and their organizations that allow them to
do both, protect existing assets (compliance role), as well as, manage threats to future growth
(strategy oversight role). This section of the site includes a range of useful publications relating
to improving the effectiveness of the board.
Organizational Structure
Products/Services
Audit and enterprise risk services
Consulting
Financial advisory
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
DEFINITION OF AUDITING
Arens and Loebbecke, 1998 defines Auditing as:
“Auditing is the process by which a competent, independent person accumulates and evaluates
evidence about quantifiable information related to a specific economic entity for the purpose of
determining and reporting on the degree of correspondence between the quantifiable information
and established criteria.”
This definition includes several key words and phrases. To understand the definition, different
terms are discussed below:
Competent, Independent Person:
The auditor must be qualified to understand the criteria used and competent to know the types
and amount of evidence to accumulate to reach the proper conclusion after the evidence has been
examined. The auditor must also have an independent mental attitude. It does little good to have
a competent person who is biased performing the evidence accumulation when unbiased
information and objective thinking are needed for the judgments and decisions to be made.
Independence cannot be absolute by any means, but it must be a goal that is worked toward; and
it can be achieved to a certain degree.
Accumulating and Evaluating Evidence:
Evidence is defined as any information used by the auditor to determine whether the quantifiable
information being audited is stated in accordance with the established criteria. Evidence takes
many different forms, including oral testimony of the auditee (client), written communication
with outsiders, and observation by the auditor. It is important to obtain sufficient quality and
volume of evidence to satisfy the audit objectives. The process of determining the amount of
evidence necessary and evaluating whether the quantifiable information corresponds to the
established criteria is a critical task for every auditor.
Quantifiable Information and Established Criteria:
To do an audit, there must be information in a verifiable form and some standards (criteria) by
which the auditor can evaluate the information. Quantifiable information can and does take many
forms. It is possible to audit such thing as a company’s financial statements, the amount of time
it takes an employee to complete an assigned task, the total cost of a government construction
contract, and an individual’s tax return. The criteria for evaluating quantitative information can
also vary considerably. For example, in auditing a vendor’s invoice for the acquisition of raw
materials, it is possible to determine whether materials of the quantity and stated description
were actually received, whether the proper raw material was acquired considering the production
needs of the company, or whether the price charged for the goods was reasonable. The criteria
used depend upon the objectives of the audit. ƒ
Economic Entity:
Whenever an audit is conducted, the scope of the auditor’s responsibility must be made clear.
The primary method involves defining the economic entity and the time period. In most
instances the economic entity is also a legal entity, such as a corporation, unit of government,
partnership, or proprietorship. In some cases, however, the entity is defined as a division, a
department, or even an individual. The time period for conducting an audit is typically one year,
but there is also audits for a month, a quarter, several years, and in some cases the lifetime of an
entity. ƒ Reporting: The final stage in the audit process is the audit report – the communication
of the findings to users. Reports differ in nature, but in all cases they must inform readers of the
degree of correspondence between quantifiable information and established criteria.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING:
Many financial statements users and members of the general public confuse auditing with
accounting. The confusion results because most auditing is concerned with accounting
information, and many auditors have considerable expertise in accounting matters. Although
auditing and accounting are related, they are distinct from each other.
Accounting involves collecting, summarizing, reporting, and interpreting financial data.
Accounting is the process of recording, classifying, and summarizing economic events in a
logical manner for the purpose of providing financial information for decision making. The
function of accounting, to an entity and a society as a whole, is to provide certain types of
quantitative information that management and others can use to make decisions. To provide
relevant information, accountants must have a thorough understanding of the principles and rules
that provides the basis for preparing the accounting information. In addition, accountants must
develop a system to make sure that the entity’s economic events are properly recorded on a
timely basis and at a reasonable cost.
Auditing, by contrast, utilizes the theory of evidence – in much the same way as does the legal
profession – to verify the overall reasonableness (fairness) of the financial statements presented.
In auditing accounting data, the concern is with determining whether recorded information
properly reflects the economic events that occurred during the accounting period. Since the
accounting rules are the criteria for evaluating whether the accounting information is properly
recorded, any auditor involved with these data must also thoroughly understand the rules. In the
context of the audit of financial statements, these are generally accepted accounting principles
TYPES OF AUDIT:
There are various types of audit. Such as:
a. Operational Audit
b. Compliance Audit
c. Audit of Financial Statements
f. Performance Audit
g. Governmental Audit
a) Operational Audit:
Operational Audit refers to the study of business operations for the purpose of making
recommendations about the economic and efficient use of resources, effective achievement of
business objectives and compliance with company policies. At the completion of an operational
audit, recommendations to management for improving operations are normally expected. The
goal of operational audit is to help managers to discharge their management responsibilities and
improve profitability.
b) Compliance Audit:
Management often wants to know whether its organizational policies are being complied with or
whether external mandates are being met. The purpose of a compliance audit is to determine
whether the auditee is following specific procedures or rules set down by some higher authority.
Results of compliance audits are generally reported to someone within the organizational unit
being audited rather than to a broad spectrum of users. Management, as opposed to outside users,
is the primary group concern with the extent of compliance with certain prescribed procedures
and regulations. Hence a significant portion of work of this type is done by auditors employed by
the organizational units themselves.
Compliance audit involves:
1. Examining transactions and detailed records, and
2. Identifying weaknesses.
c) Audit of Financial Statements:
Financial statements audits are conducted to determine whether financial statements are
presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However,
public sector financial audits also determine whether financial statements are presented in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
An audit of financial statements is conducted to determine whether the overall financial
statements – the quantifiable information being verified – are stated in accordance with specific
criteria. The financial statements most commonly included are the statement of financial
position, income statement and statement of cash flow, including accompanying footnotes.
The assumption underlying an audit of financial statements is that they will be used by different
groups for different purposes. Therefore, it is more efficient to have one auditor perform an audit
and draw conclusion that can be relied upon by all users than to have each user perform his or
d) Internal Audit:
Internal audit is an independent appraisal function established within an organization to examine
and evaluate its activities as a service to the organization. The objective of internal auditing is to
assist members of the organization in the effective discharge of their responsibilities. To this end,
internal audit furnishes them with analyses, appraisals, recommendations, counsel, and
information concerning the activities reviewed.
Internal audit is practiced by auditors employed by an organization, such as a bank, hospital, city
government, or industrial company. The Institute of Internal Auditors is the international
organization that governs the standards, continuing education, and generals rules of conduct for
internal auditors as a profession.
e) Interim Audit:
Interim audit refers to the procedures applied prior to the client’s year end, primarily for the
purpose of lowering the assessed risk level. The interim audit phase consists of resting the
client’s internal accounting controls and performing substantive tests of transactions. Interim
audit procedures performed several weeks or months before the balance sheet date.
In recent years, certain changes in the information processing environment have begun to alter
the traditional approach to the interim audit. Instead of testing the internal control procedures
during a single interim time period, auditors are applying these tests, along with tests of selected
transactions, at frequent intervals throughout the year. This sometimes referred to as Continuous
Audit. This type of audit is especially applicable to those clients with sophisticated computer
based accounting applications.
f) Performance Audit: Performance audits address the economy, efficiency, and program results
of a reporting unit. Economy and efficiency audits are performed to determine whether
management’s objectives are being achieved and to identify opportunities and develop
recommendations for improvements. Program audit includes determining (1) the extent to which
the desired results or benefits established by the legislature or other organizing body are being
achieved, (2) the effectiveness of organizations, programs, activities, or functions, and (3)
whether the entity has complied with laws and regulations applicable to the program.
g) Governmental Audit:
Governmental audit may be defined as testing and reporting on conformity with laws and
regulations relating to recipients of federal financial assistance. Governmental audit refers to the
independent auditor’s responsibility for determining compliance with laws and regulations when
engaged in audits of state and local governmental units, as well as other not-for-profit entities,
that are the recipients of federal finance assistance.
Governmental auditors are employed by various state, local, and federal agencies. The work
performed by these auditors’ ranges from a internal audits of a specific agency to audits of other
governmental units to audits of reports furnished to the government by outside organizations.
AICPA GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS:
Auditing standards are general guidelines to aid auditors in fulfilling their professional
responsibilities in the audit of historical financial statements. They include consideration of
professional qualities such as competence and independence, reporting requirements, and
The broadest guidelines available are the ten Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS).
These standards were developed by the AICPA in 1947, they have, with minimal changes,
remained the same. These standards are not sufficiently specific to provide any meaningful guide
to practitioners, but they do represent a framework upon which the AICPA can provide
The ten Generally Accepted Auditing Standards are as follows:
General Standards 1. The audit is to be performed by a person or persons having adequate
technical training and proficiency as an auditor. 2. In all matters relating to the assignment,
independence in mental attitude is to be maintained by the auditor or auditors. 3. Due
professional care is to be exercised in the performance of the audit and the preparation of the
Field Work Standards
1. The work is to be adequately planned, and assistants, if any, are to be properly supervised.
2. A sufficient Understanding of the internal control structure is to be obtained to plan the audit
and to determine the nature, timing, and extent of tests to be performed.
3. Sufficient competent evidential matter is to be obtained through inspection, observations,
inquiries, and confirmations to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding the financial
statements under audit.
Reporting Standards
1. The report shall state whether the financial statements are presented in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
2. The report shall identify those circumstances in which such principles have not been
consistently observed in the current period in relation to the preceding period.
3. Informative disclosures in the financial statements are to be regarded as reasonably adequate
unless otherwise stated in the report.
4. The report shall either contain an expression of opinion regarding the financial statements,
taken as a whole, or an assertion to the effect that an opinion cannot be expressed. When an
overall opinion cannot be expressed, the reasons therefore should be stated. In all cases where an
auditor’s name is associated with financial statements, the report should contain a clear-cut
indication of the character of the auditor’s work, if any, and the degree of responsibility the
auditor is taking.
Introduction to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, usually referred to as Deloitte, is one of the Big 4
accountancy firms (other firms are PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, and KPMG).
Deloitte is considered as the second largest professional services firm in the world, featuring
1,82,000 employees in more than 150 countries proffering tax, audit, enterprise risk, consulting,
and financial advisory services. The company holds its headquarters in Paramount Plaza, New
York City, New York, and Midtown Manhattan.
Deloitte is one of the biggest auditing and accounting firm world wide that is head quartered in
New York. Deloitte was formed in the year 1845 and is now expanded over throughout the world
in nearly 150 countries. Deloitte specializes in not only tax and auditing but also consulting,
financial and advisory services and has been consistently awarded second in the top ten auditing
companies for two years in a row.
Global Structure
For several years, the organization and its network of firms was legally organized as a Swiss
Verein. On July 31, 2010, the members of the Verein became a part of the Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company. Each of these member firms included in its
global network remains an individual and independent legal entity, entitled to the laws and
professional policies of a specific country or countries in which it functions.
Origin of the Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, commonly referred to as Deloitte, is the largest professional
services network in the world by revenue and by the number of professionals. Deloitte
provides audit, tax, consulting, enterprise risk and financial advisory services with more than
200,000 professionals in over 150 countries. In FY 2013–14, it earned a record $34.2 billion
USD in revenues.
Deloitte is one of the "Big Four" professional services firms along with PwC, EY, and KPMG.
Its global headquarters are located in the United States.
In 2012, Accountancy Age reported that, in the UK, Deloitte had the largest number of clients
amongst FTSE 250 companies. Bloomberg Business has consistently named Deloitte as the best
place to launch a career.
In 1845, William Welch Deloitte opened an office in Basinghall Street in London. Deloitte was
the first person to be appointed an independent auditor of a public company, namely the Great
Western Railway. He went on to open an office in New York in 1880.
In 1896, Charles Waldo Haskins and Elijah Watt Sells formed Haskins & Sells in New York. It
was later described as "the first major auditing firm to be established in the country by American
rather than British accountants."
In 1898, George Touche established an office in London and then, in 1900, joined John
Ballantine Niven in establishing the firm of Touche Niven in the Johnston Building at 30 Broad
Streetin New York. At the time, there were fewer than 500 CPAs practicing in the United States,
but the new era of income taxes was soon to generate enormous demand for accounting
On 1 March 1933, Colonel Arthur Hazelton Carter, President of the New York State Society of
Certified Public Accountants and Managing Partner of Haskins & Sells, testified before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. Carter helped convince Congress that independent
audits should be mandatory for public companies
In 1947, Detroit accountant George Bailey, then president of the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, launched his own organization. The new entity enjoyed such a positive start
that in less than a year, the partners merged with Touche Niven and A. R. Smart to form Touche,
Niven, Bailey & Smart. Headed by Bailey, the organization grew rapidly, in part by creating a
dedicated management consulting function. It also forged closer links with organizations
established by the co-founder of Touche Niven, George Touche: the Canadian organization Ross
and the British organization George A. Touche. In 1960, the firm was renamed Touche, Ross,
Bailey & Smart, becoming Touche Ross in 1969. In 1968 Nobuzo Tohmatsu formed Tohmatsu
Aoki & Co, a firm based in Japan that was to become part of the Touche Ross network in
1975. In 1972 Robert Trueblood, Chairman of Touche Ross, led the committee responsible for
recommending the establishment of the Financial Accounting Standards Board. He led the
expansion of Touche Ross in that era.
In 1989, Deloitte Haskins & Sells merged with Touche Ross in the USA to form Deloitte &
Touche. The merged firm was led jointly by J. Michael Cook and Edward A. Kangas. Led by the
UK partnership, a smaller number of Deloitte Haskins & Sells member firms rejected the merger
with Touche Ross and shortly thereafter merged with Coopers & Lybrand to form Coopers &
Lybrand Deloitte (later to merge with Price Waterhouse to become PwC). Some member firms
of Touche Ross also rejected the merger with Deloitte Haskins & Sells and merged with other
At the time of the US-led mergers to form Deloitte & Touche, the name of the international firm
was a problem, because there was no worldwide exclusive access to the names "Deloitte" or
"Touche Ross" – key member firms such as Deloitte in the UK and Touche Ross in Australia had
not joined the merger. The name DRT International was therefore chosen, referring to Deloitte,
Ross and Tohmatsu. In 1993, the international firm was renamed Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to
reflect the contribution from the Japanese firm, as well as agreements to use both of the names
Deloitte and Touche.
In 1995, the partners of Deloitte & Touche decided to create Deloitte & Touche Consulting
Group (now known as Deloitte Consulting).
In 2000, Deloitte acquired Eclipse to add Internet design-based solutions to its consulting
capabilities. Eclipse was later separated into Deloitte Online and Deloitte Digital.
In 2002, Arthur Andersen's UK practice, the firm's largest practice outside the US, agreed to
merge with Deloitte's UK practice. Andersen's practices in Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Belgium, Mexico, Brazil and Canada also agreed to merge with Deloitte. The spinoff of Deloitte
France's consulting division led to the creation of Ineum Consulting.
In 2009, Deloitte purchased the North American Public Service practice
of BearingPoint (formerly KPMG Consulting) after it filed for bankruptcy protection. The firm
also took over the UK property consultants Drivers Jonas in January 2010.
In 2011, Deloitte acquired DOMANI Sustainability Consulting and Clear Carbon Consulting in
order to expand its sustainability service offerings.
In January 2012, Deloitte announced the acquisition of Übermind, Inc., an innovative mobile
agency. The acquisition is Deloitte's first entrance into the mobile application field.
In November 2012, Deloitte acquired Recombinant Data Corporation, a company specializing
in data warehousing and clinical intelligence solutions, and launched Recombinant by
Deloitte. In February 2013 Recombinant by Deloitte merged with an internal informatics unit
(Deloitte Health Informatics) and launched Converge HEALTH by Deloitte.
On 11 January 2013, Deloitte acquired substantially all of the business of Monitor Group, the
strategy consulting firm founded by Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, after
Monitor filed for bankruptcy protection.
Deloitte, the Brand name
Deloitte is one of the best preferred brands to work with. Deloitte has hundreds of professionals
working throughout the world as separate identities, but still belonging to Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited or DTTL, which is a UK company limited by agreement.
The company has achieved great success since its inception and continues to do so with hard
work and total dedication to client and customer satisfaction. Spread in over 150 countries world
wide, Deloitte has dedicated staffs that puts in their best efforts in order to provide the best
accounting and audit services. Their main aim is to provide excellent services to their customers
and clients and they have put maximum efforts in attaining it too.
Deloitte values its reputation and makes sure that they provide with great financial services and
practice responsible business practices when dealing with their clients. The shared value across
the Deloitte companies all over the world is what makes this company the much preferred choice
for many people as not only aims at providing excellence in all of the services provided by them,
but also make sure their services are delivered as per the clients expectations.
Deloitte provides audit and enterprise risk services, tax, financial advisory services, strategy,
risk, assurance and consulting services in various industries like health care, banking and
securities, automotives, power and u utilities, real estate, retail, media, life science, insurance and
Corporate Responsibility
Deloitte has incorporated a “green” corporate responsibility where the outcome benefits not only
the environment but also the company too.
Awards and Recognition
Deloitte has been on the Fortune’s list in the “Best 100 companies to work for” for the 12th time
in a row. Deloitte has been ranked in the top ten best places to work for working mothers.
Deloitte has been named one of the Top Accounting Firms by Accounting Today, 2011 top 100
Deloitte has received the Sloan Award in 2011 for Business Excellence in Workplace
Vision, values & strategy
Deloitte aspires to be the standard of excellence, the first choice of the most sought-after
clients and talent.
In pursuit of that aspiration, we are mindful of our role in society, our obligation to our
organization and its customers, and our responsibility as employers. We aim high,
confident that our daily efforts will come together exponentially to benefit a world that
needs continuous infusions of integrity, business acumen, innovation, enthusiasm,
thoughtfulness, and most of all, meaningful actions.
When member firms' clients succeed and grow, capitalizing on opportunities and
overcoming challenges, economies prosper. When those clients implement new ideas and
enhance the quality of their offerings, consumers profit. And when those clients operate
ethically and adopt environmentally friendly processes, society thrives.
Deloitte's mission is to influence those activities through leadership, insight, expertise,
problem-solving skills, and deep knowledge of our globalized marketplace. Doing so
demands teamwork, working together across geographic, functional, and business
This multifaceted, inclusive approach is, perhaps, our greatest strength. The people who
represent Deloitte come from all corners of the globe, bringing a tremendous variety of
skills and backgrounds. Yet, they function As One, aligned with our vision and shared
values that are appreciated by clients and talent alike.
Shared values
Our Shared Values bind the people of the Deloitte member firms together, providing the
basis for trusting one another and helping enable the network to achieve its vision.
We believe nothing is more important than our reputation. That's why we are committed
to sustainable, responsible business practices. Behaving with the highest levels of
integrity is fundamental to who we are.
Outstanding value to markets and clients
We play a critical role in helping both the financial markets and our member firm clients
operate more effectively. We consider this role a privilege, and we know it requires
constant vigilance and unrelenting commitment.
Commitment to each other
We believe our culture of borderless collegiality gives us a competitive advantage, so we
work hard to nurture and preserve it. We go to extraordinary lengths to support our
Strength from cultural diversity
Both member firm clients and our people benefit from multidimensional thinking.
Bringing together individuals of different backgrounds, cultures, and thinking styles helps
clients rise above complex business challenges, and enables our people to develop into
better professionals and leaders.
Board Of Directors
Deloitte & Touche Board Members
Name (Connections) Title
Joseph Ucuzoglu Chairman of The Board and Chief Executive Officer
Deborah DeHaas Vice Chairman and Midwest Regional Managing Partner
Tom Captain Vice-Chairman and Global of US Aerospace & Defense
Leader
Nick Tommasino Vice Chairman and Advisory Partner
Other Board Members On Board Members
Name (Connections) Type of Board Members Primary Company
Robert O'Brien Vice Chairman Canadian REIT
Harry Raduege Jr. Unit Chairman Cohen Group, Inc.
Stephen Van Arsdell Member of the Board of
Directors
Gareth Taylor Member of the Board of
Directors
Theresa Porch Member of the Board of
Directors
Wayne Withrow Member of the Board of
Directors
James Rothman Ph.D. Member of Advisory Board Genprex, Inc.
Carl Novina M.D.,
Member of Advisory Board Marina Biotech, Inc.
Roger Kornberg Ph.D. Member of Advisory Board Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
Punit Renjen Member of the Board of
Directors
Robin Buchanan Member of the Board of
Directors
Gregory Weaver Member of the Board of
Directors
With expectations of them continuing to increase, boards can take several actions to govern more
effectively. Indian boards must move away from being a rubber stamp to being a strategic asset
for the company. They need to set the tone from top in promoting a transparent culture that
promotes effective dialogues among the directors, senior management, and various function and
risk managers. Boards should look beyond the ‘old boy network’ and select directors with
individual areas of expertise, and invest on an ongoing basis on their formal and informal
education. Independent directors should significantly contribute to the functioning of the board
through requisite understanding of the company and the business. Boards must take a hard look
at its own performance evaluation and enable continuous feedback and communication cycle.
Effective boards build capabilities within themselves and their organizations that allow them to
do both, protect existing assets (compliance role), as well as, manage threats to future growth
(strategy oversight role). This section of the site includes a range of useful publications relating
to improving the effectiveness of the board.
Organizational Structure
Products/Services
Audit and enterprise risk services
Consulting
Financial advisory
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
DEFINITION OF AUDITING
Arens and Loebbecke, 1998 defines Auditing as:
“Auditing is the process by which a competent, independent person accumulates and evaluates
evidence about quantifiable information related to a specific economic entity for the purpose of
determining and reporting on the degree of correspondence between the quantifiable information
and established criteria.”
This definition includes several key words and phrases. To understand the definition, different
terms are discussed below:
Competent, Independent Person:
The auditor must be qualified to understand the criteria used and competent to know the types
and amount of evidence to accumulate to reach the proper conclusion after the evidence has been
examined. The auditor must also have an independent mental attitude. It does little good to have
a competent person who is biased performing the evidence accumulation when unbiased
information and objective thinking are needed for the judgments and decisions to be made.
Independence cannot be absolute by any means, but it must be a goal that is worked toward; and
it can be achieved to a certain degree.
Accumulating and Evaluating Evidence:
Evidence is defined as any information used by the auditor to determine whether the quantifiable
information being audited is stated in accordance with the established criteria. Evidence takes
many different forms, including oral testimony of the auditee (client), written communication
with outsiders, and observation by the auditor. It is important to obtain sufficient quality and
volume of evidence to satisfy the audit objectives. The process of determining the amount of
evidence necessary and evaluating whether the quantifiable information corresponds to the
established criteria is a critical task for every auditor.
Quantifiable Information and Established Criteria:
To do an audit, there must be information in a verifiable form and some standards (criteria) by
which the auditor can evaluate the information. Quantifiable information can and does take many
forms. It is possible to audit such thing as a company’s financial statements, the amount of time
it takes an employee to complete an assigned task, the total cost of a government construction
contract, and an individual’s tax return. The criteria for evaluating quantitative information can
also vary considerably. For example, in auditing a vendor’s invoice for the acquisition of raw
materials, it is possible to determine whether materials of the quantity and stated description
were actually received, whether the proper raw material was acquired considering the production
needs of the company, or whether the price charged for the goods was reasonable. The criteria
used depend upon the objectives of the audit. ƒ
Economic Entity:
Whenever an audit is conducted, the scope of the auditor’s responsibility must be made clear.
The primary method involves defining the economic entity and the time period. In most
instances the economic entity is also a legal entity, such as a corporation, unit of government,
partnership, or proprietorship. In some cases, however, the entity is defined as a division, a
department, or even an individual. The time period for conducting an audit is typically one year,
but there is also audits for a month, a quarter, several years, and in some cases the lifetime of an
entity. ƒ Reporting: The final stage in the audit process is the audit report – the communication
of the findings to users. Reports differ in nature, but in all cases they must inform readers of the
degree of correspondence between quantifiable information and established criteria.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING:
Many financial statements users and members of the general public confuse auditing with
accounting. The confusion results because most auditing is concerned with accounting
information, and many auditors have considerable expertise in accounting matters. Although
auditing and accounting are related, they are distinct from each other.
Accounting involves collecting, summarizing, reporting, and interpreting financial data.
Accounting is the process of recording, classifying, and summarizing economic events in a
logical manner for the purpose of providing financial information for decision making. The
function of accounting, to an entity and a society as a whole, is to provide certain types of
quantitative information that management and others can use to make decisions. To provide
relevant information, accountants must have a thorough understanding of the principles and rules
that provides the basis for preparing the accounting information. In addition, accountants must
develop a system to make sure that the entity’s economic events are properly recorded on a
timely basis and at a reasonable cost.
Auditing, by contrast, utilizes the theory of evidence – in much the same way as does the legal
profession – to verify the overall reasonableness (fairness) of the financial statements presented.
In auditing accounting data, the concern is with determining whether recorded information
properly reflects the economic events that occurred during the accounting period. Since the
accounting rules are the criteria for evaluating whether the accounting information is properly
recorded, any auditor involved with these data must also thoroughly understand the rules. In the
context of the audit of financial statements, these are generally accepted accounting principles
TYPES OF AUDIT:
There are various types of audit. Such as:
a. Operational Audit
b. Compliance Audit
c. Audit of Financial Statements
f. Performance Audit
g. Governmental Audit
a) Operational Audit:
Operational Audit refers to the study of business operations for the purpose of making
recommendations about the economic and efficient use of resources, effective achievement of
business objectives and compliance with company policies. At the completion of an operational
audit, recommendations to management for improving operations are normally expected. The
goal of operational audit is to help managers to discharge their management responsibilities and
improve profitability.
b) Compliance Audit:
Management often wants to know whether its organizational policies are being complied with or
whether external mandates are being met. The purpose of a compliance audit is to determine
whether the auditee is following specific procedures or rules set down by some higher authority.
Results of compliance audits are generally reported to someone within the organizational unit
being audited rather than to a broad spectrum of users. Management, as opposed to outside users,
is the primary group concern with the extent of compliance with certain prescribed procedures
and regulations. Hence a significant portion of work of this type is done by auditors employed by
the organizational units themselves.
Compliance audit involves:
1. Examining transactions and detailed records, and
2. Identifying weaknesses.
c) Audit of Financial Statements:
Financial statements audits are conducted to determine whether financial statements are
presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However,
public sector financial audits also determine whether financial statements are presented in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
An audit of financial statements is conducted to determine whether the overall financial
statements – the quantifiable information being verified – are stated in accordance with specific
criteria. The financial statements most commonly included are the statement of financial
position, income statement and statement of cash flow, including accompanying footnotes.
The assumption underlying an audit of financial statements is that they will be used by different
groups for different purposes. Therefore, it is more efficient to have one auditor perform an audit
and draw conclusion that can be relied upon by all users than to have each user perform his or
d) Internal Audit:
Internal audit is an independent appraisal function established within an organization to examine
and evaluate its activities as a service to the organization. The objective of internal auditing is to
assist members of the organization in the effective discharge of their responsibilities. To this end,
internal audit furnishes them with analyses, appraisals, recommendations, counsel, and
information concerning the activities reviewed.
Internal audit is practiced by auditors employed by an organization, such as a bank, hospital, city
government, or industrial company. The Institute of Internal Auditors is the international
organization that governs the standards, continuing education, and generals rules of conduct for
internal auditors as a profession.
e) Interim Audit:
Interim audit refers to the procedures applied prior to the client’s year end, primarily for the
purpose of lowering the assessed risk level. The interim audit phase consists of resting the
client’s internal accounting controls and performing substantive tests of transactions. Interim
audit procedures performed several weeks or months before the balance sheet date.
In recent years, certain changes in the information processing environment have begun to alter
the traditional approach to the interim audit. Instead of testing the internal control procedures
during a single interim time period, auditors are applying these tests, along with tests of selected
transactions, at frequent intervals throughout the year. This sometimes referred to as Continuous
Audit. This type of audit is especially applicable to those clients with sophisticated computer
based accounting applications.
f) Performance Audit: Performance audits address the economy, efficiency, and program results
of a reporting unit. Economy and efficiency audits are performed to determine whether
management’s objectives are being achieved and to identify opportunities and develop
recommendations for improvements. Program audit includes determining (1) the extent to which
the desired results or benefits established by the legislature or other organizing body are being
achieved, (2) the effectiveness of organizations, programs, activities, or functions, and (3)
whether the entity has complied with laws and regulations applicable to the program.
g) Governmental Audit:
Governmental audit may be defined as testing and reporting on conformity with laws and
regulations relating to recipients of federal financial assistance. Governmental audit refers to the
independent auditor’s responsibility for determining compliance with laws and regulations when
engaged in audits of state and local governmental units, as well as other not-for-profit entities,
that are the recipients of federal finance assistance.
Governmental auditors are employed by various state, local, and federal agencies. The work
performed by these auditors’ ranges from a internal audits of a specific agency to audits of other
governmental units to audits of reports furnished to the government by outside organizations.
AICPA GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS:
Auditing standards are general guidelines to aid auditors in fulfilling their professional
responsibilities in the audit of historical financial statements. They include consideration of
professional qualities such as competence and independence, reporting requirements, and
The broadest guidelines available are the ten Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS).
These standards were developed by the AICPA in 1947, they have, with minimal changes,
remained the same. These standards are not sufficiently specific to provide any meaningful guide
to practitioners, but they do represent a framework upon which the AICPA can provide
The ten Generally Accepted Auditing Standards are as follows:
General Standards 1. The audit is to be performed by a person or persons having adequate
technical training and proficiency as an auditor. 2. In all matters relating to the assignment,
independence in mental attitude is to be maintained by the auditor or auditors. 3. Due
professional care is to be exercised in the performance of the audit and the preparation of the
Field Work Standards
1. The work is to be adequately planned, and assistants, if any, are to be properly supervised.
2. A sufficient Understanding of the internal control structure is to be obtained to plan the audit
and to determine the nature, timing, and extent of tests to be performed.
3. Sufficient competent evidential matter is to be obtained through inspection, observations,
inquiries, and confirmations to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding the financial
statements under audit.
Reporting Standards
1. The report shall state whether the financial statements are presented in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
2. The report shall identify those circumstances in which such principles have not been
consistently observed in the current period in relation to the preceding period.
3. Informative disclosures in the financial statements are to be regarded as reasonably adequate
unless otherwise stated in the report.
4. The report shall either contain an expression of opinion regarding the financial statements,
taken as a whole, or an assertion to the effect that an opinion cannot be expressed. When an
overall opinion cannot be expressed, the reasons therefore should be stated. In all cases where an
auditor’s name is associated with financial statements, the report should contain a clear-cut
indication of the character of the auditor’s work, if any, and the degree of responsibility the
auditor is taking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)