CA Final Nov 2026 Audit important questions: 10 repeat types

CA Final Audit important questions for November 2026 fall into ten types that ICAI set again and again: "is CA X guilty?" ethics cases, CARO 2020 and fraud reporting, drafting the audit report, SRE 2400/2410 reviews, banks and NBFCs, SA 240 fraud, using an expert, ESG and BRSR, SQC 1, and other engagements (SA 810, SAE 3400, SRS 4410). Each was set at least twice in ICAI's last four Audit papers, most of them in every paper. Below: where ICAI set each one, what earns the marks, and the trap.

Audit is on Friday, 6 November 2026. For marks by chapter, see our CA Final Audit chapter-wise weightage and ABC analysis; this post is about the questions inside those chapters.

Where these Audit important questions come from

Every reference is from ICAI's suggested answers for Paper 3: May 2025 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), September 2025 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), January 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab) and May 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab).

The updates come from ICAI's RTP for Paper 3, November 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab). Two of them change how a past ICAI answer would be written today; both are flagged below. The grouping into types is ours.

CA Final Audit important questions: the 10 types at a glance

1. Ethics cases: the most-asked Audit important question

Every paper had four descriptive ethics sub-parts, and Q5(c) was ethics all four times. The question is almost always "Is CA X guilty of professional misconduct?"

What wins marks: the clause, each fact tested against it, then one line: guilty or not.

The trap, from May 2025 Q3(b), 5 marks: M/s JAZZ & Co., two partners, had signed 118 tax audits under section 44AB, and was offered 3 more 44AB audits and 4 under section 44AD. ICAI's answer treated 60 per partner as a firm limit of 120 that "may be distributed between the partners in any manner whatsoever", and allowed 2 more 44AB audits plus all four 44AD audits.

For November 2026, that method has changed. The RTP rewrites Chapter VI: 60 tax audits per member per financial year, as an aggregate of everything the member signs individually and as a partner, and the limit "cannot be distributed/or shared between the partners". Audits under sections 44AD, 44ADA and 44AE still don't count. The RTP's MCQ 1 tests exactly this: a partner who signed 68 reports is guilty, answer (b), whatever his four-partner firm's total.

The RTP also amends Clause (9) of Part I of the First Schedule and adds Clause (5) to Part II of the Second Schedule. All eight Audit updates for this attempt, NBFC and ethics, are listed in CA Final Audit amendments for Nov 2026.

2. CARO 2020 and fraud reporting

A CARO 2020 question came up in every paper, often joined to fraud reporting.

May 2026 Q5(a), 5 marks: a ₹75 lakh fraud through fictitious vendor invoices, which management called immaterial against a ₹500 crore turnover.

What wins marks: the threshold. A fraud below ₹1 crore is reported under section 143(12) and Rule 13(3) to the audit committee or the Board, "immediately but not later than 2 days" of knowledge, with its nature, amount and parties. Then clause (xi) of paragraph 3 of CARO 2020: fraud noticed or reported during the year, with nature and amount.

The trap: materiality. ICAI's answer says the fraud goes into the CARO report "irrespective of materiality considerations raised by management". May 2025 Q3(a) was clause (iii), loans to a subsidiary; September 2025 Q1(c) was clause (xxi), in a consolidated report.

3. Drafting the audit report

Three of the four papers had a reporting question in Q1, which is compulsory. January 2026 Q1(a), 5 marks: flood-damaged fixed assets of ₹250 crore (60% of total assets) with no valuation allowed, and ₹120 crore of related party transactions with no documents.

What wins marks: the opinion, its reason, then the paragraphs. ICAI gave a Disclaimer of Opinion under SA 705, since the possible effects were "both material and pervasive", and drafted both the opinion and the basis paragraph with the case's figures.

The trap: stopping at the opinion when the question asks for the drafting too. May 2026 Q1(b) was an SA 706 Emphasis of Matter, and May 2025 Q1(a) SA 720 "Other Information".

4. Review engagements: SRE 2400 and SRE 2410

A review question came up in every paper, sometimes twice: SRE 2410 was asked as Q3(c) and Q6(b) in September 2025.

May 2026 Q4(b), 5 marks: in a review, management refused written representations on a suspected related party.

What wins marks: ICAI's SRE 2400 sequence: discuss with management and those charged with governance, re-evaluate management's integrity, decide the effect on the conclusion. Then the two cases for a disclaimer of conclusion or withdrawal: doubt about integrity makes representations unreliable, or management refuses representations on its own responsibilities.

The trap: writing audit procedures. In January 2026, examiners flagged answers "limited to SA 520 references" in an SRE 2400 review (January 2026 examiners' comments, PDF (opens in a new tab)); cite the SRE.

5. Banks and NBFCs: prudential norms

Banks or NBFCs had a 5-mark question in every paper, plus MCQs.

May 2025 Q4(a): Instant Finance Ltd, an NBFC-BL with 60% of its financial assets in gold loans, reported Tier 1 capital of ₹130 crore, including ₹15 crore of perpetual debt, on risk-weighted assets of ₹1,000 crore.

The November 2026 RTP restates capital requirements under the RBI's 2025 directions; the 12% Tier 1 and 15% CRAR for gold-loan NBFCs still apply, so this working holds. Learn the RTP's layer-wise table too.

The trap, from May 2026 Q3(a): a digital lender tagged overdue accounts as "watchlist" and kept booking interest on them. ICAI's answer: internal tagging "cannot override regulatory asset classification", and income on NPAs is recognised on realisation only. ICAI's examiners noted that "many responses were theoretical and lacked application to the facts of the case" (May 2026 examiners' comments, PDF (opens in a new tab)).

6. SA 240: fraud risk and responses

May 2025 Q1(b) asked for responses to fraud risk (5 marks); January 2026 Q5(b) was fraud risk factors (5), and its Q6(c) OR was SA 240 withdrawal (4).

What wins marks: sort points by level. Financial statement level: assign and supervise staff, assess accounting policies, add unpredictability. Assertion level: change the nature, timing and extent of procedures.

The trap: if the case asks what the auditor must report, the answer is section 143(12) and CARO (type 2), not SA 240.

7. Using an expert: SA 620 or SA 500

May 2025 Q2(b) was the auditor's expert under SA 620; May 2026 Q4(a) was management's expert under SA 500. Both 5 marks.

What wins marks, from May 2026 (a provision cut 15% on the report of the company's own CTO, whose incentives were tied to profit): SA 500's three steps. Evaluate the expert's competence, capabilities and objectivity; understand the work; evaluate it as evidence. ICAI: the auditor cannot rely solely on the CTO.

The trap: examiners wrote that "many examinees incorrectly answered with reference to SA 620 instead of SA 500". Ask who engaged the expert: the auditor (SA 620) or the company (SA 500).

8. ESG and BRSR: a 4-mark question you can pre-write

An ESG question came up in all four papers: BRSR Principle 8, inclusive growth (May 2025 Q5(b), 5 marks); the Social pillar (September 2025 Q4(c)); integrated reporting capitals (January 2026 Q4(c)); BRSR Principle 6, the environment (May 2026 Q4(c)).

What wins marks: name the one principle, pillar or capital the facts point to, then its core elements; don't list all nine BRSR principles. In January 2026, a leadership programme was human capital and an automated production line manufactured capital.

9. SQC 1: quality control in the firm

May 2025 Q2(a), 5 marks: the same engagement partner had audited a listed company for seven years, and the client didn't want a change.

What wins marks: SQC 1's rotation of engagement partners on listed entities after a pre-defined period, "normally not more than seven years", and the policies the question's second half asks for. September 2025 Q1(a) was engagement quality control review; January 2026 Q1(c) leadership responsibilities.

10. Other engagements: SA 810, SAE 3400, SRS 4410

These standards came back within a year: SA 810 in September 2025 Q5(a) and January 2026 Q4(a); SAE 3400 in January 2026 Q6(c) and May 2026 Q6(a); SRS 4410 in May 2025 Q3(c) and May 2026 Q1(c).

What wins marks: the standard's exact requirement, point by point. May 2026 Q1(c), 4 marks, asked for the documentation SRS 4410 needs in a compilation for a partnership firm: significant matters and how they were addressed, how the compiled information reconciles with the records, and a copy of the final compiled information and the report.

The trap: mixing up assurance levels. A compilation (SRS 4410) gives no assurance and a review (SRE) gives limited assurance, so neither report can read like an audit opinion.

How to practise these Audit important questions

1. One type a day, oldest paper to newest, then the RTP question on that type.
2. Write in three blocks: provision, application, conclusion (how to write answers in the CA exam; ICAI examiners' comments).
3. Redo the two changed answers with the RTP (CA Final amendments for Nov 2026).

ICAI's papers are on our CA Final past year question papers and CA Final RTP pages.

Important questions for other CA Final papers

• CA Final FR important questions: the Ind AS cases ICAI keeps setting
• CA Final AFM important questions: forex, valuation and derivatives workings
• CA Final DT important questions: the direct tax and international tax types that repeat
• CA Final IDT important questions: the GST and customs questions ICAI repeats
• CA Final IBS important questions: how the case studies are built

Frequently asked questions

What are the Audit important questions for Nov 2026?

Ethics "is CA X guilty?" cases, CARO 2020 with fraud reporting, report drafting, SRE 2400/2410, banks and NBFCs, SA 240, SA 500 vs 620, ESG and BRSR, SQC 1, and SA 810, SAE 3400 and SRS 4410.

Does ICAI repeat Audit questions?

Not word for word in these four papers, but the types repeat.

Are ICAI's old suggested answers still correct for Nov 2026?

Mostly, but check them against the RTP. The May 2025 tax audit answer shared the limit between partners; for November 2026 the RTP says the limit of 60 is per member and cannot be shared.

Put the ten types into one paper

A timed paper shows which types still cost you marks. Our CA Final Audit mock tests are full-syllabus papers on ICAI's latest pattern: 30% MCQs and 70% descriptive, 100 marks in 3 hours, every chapter covered with more weight on the most-asked, and every amendment applicable for November 2026 tested.

You write by hand and upload one PDF. Your checked copy comes back within 24 hours, with ICAI-style step-wise marks, the reason for every mark cut and the correct line to write. You can read preview pages of the first mock before you buy. For a 10-day plan to 6 November, see our CA Final Audit preparation strategy, and for every subject, our CA test series and CA mock tests.