CA Inter law mock test paper Jan 2027: how ICAI marks it
A CA Inter law mock test paper for January 2027 is worth writing only if you check it the way ICAI does: every descriptive part split into the provision, its use on the facts given, and a conclusion that answers the question asked. It must also test the six company law notifications ICAI has listed for this attempt, and the fixed other-law slots of Paper 2. Below is ICAI's own May 2026 FEMA question answered in those three blocks, the amendment list with the study material page each one changes, and every May 2026 Paper 2 examiner comment that names a mistake, sorted by the block that failed.
Corporate and Other Laws is Paper 2 of Group I. ICAI's January 2027 notification (PDF) (opens in a new tab) lists 2, 4 and 6 January 2027 for Group I without saying which paper falls on which date. If the papers again run in number order, as in September 2026, Law is on Monday 4 January, between Advanced Accounting and Taxation.
How ICAI marks a CA Inter law answer
ICAI doesn't publish a mark for each step, but its suggested answers and its examiners both read a law answer as three blocks. In ICAI's May 2026 Paper 2 suggested answers (PDF) (opens in a new tab), the case answers keep returning to the same openings:
| Block | How ICAI's answer opens it | What it must contain |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Provision | "According to section…", "As per Rule…" | The section or rule, its numbers and time limits, and the exception if one exists |
| 2. Facts | "In the given case…", "In the given question…" | The names, amounts and dates from the question, run through that provision |
| 3. Conclusion | "Therefore…" or "Hence…" | A direct reply to the exact question: valid or not, can or cannot, which option |
The examiners' language shows which block they are grading. "Brief conclusions without discussing the complete statutory provisions" means block 1 was thin; "calculated the overall limit for each remittance separately" means block 2 used the right rule on the wrong figures. An answer that only says "yes" has filled one block out of three. Part marks across all papers: step marking in CA exams. Page layout: how to write answers in the CA exam.
Two habits follow from this for every law mock you write:
- When a question has two sub-parts, as several 5-mark parts do, give each sub-part its own provision and conclusion. In May 2026, the examiners flagged a weak or missing second part in four questions.
- When the provision carries a number (a limit, a percentage, a number of days), the facts block must show the arithmetic. In law, the working is part of the answer, and ICAI's paper says so: "Working notes should form part of the answer."
ICAI's May 2026 FEMA question, answered in three blocks
Question 1(c) of May 2026 was a 4-mark FEMA part. The examiners reported that most students knew the right rule, yet "some of them had calculated the overall limit for each remittance separately, thereby arriving at the wrong conclusion."
The facts (ICAI's): XYZ Ltd., an Indian construction company, earned foreign exchange of USD 200 million, 300 million and 400 million in the three previous financial years. It now wants to remit, together, USD 4 million to a technical institution in the USA in its own field and USD 3 million to set up a chair in a UK university in its founder's memory. The directors say no prior RBI approval is needed, since neither remittance alone crosses the limit. Can XYZ Ltd. remit without RBI approval?
Block 1, provision. Under Rule 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000, drawal of foreign exchange for transactions in Schedule III is governed as provided there. Item 2 of Schedule III requires the RBI's prior approval when a person other than an individual donates more than 1% of its foreign exchange earnings of the previous three financial years, or USD 5 million, whichever is less, for (a) creating Chairs in reputed educational institutes and (b) contributing to a technical institution or body in the donor's field of activity. Both purposes share this one ceiling.
Block 2, facts. Show the limit as a working:
| Working | USD |
|---|---|
| Earnings of the three previous years: 200M + 300M + 400M | 900 million |
| 1% of the earnings | 9 million |
| Fixed cap under Schedule III | 5 million |
| Limit: the lower of the two | 5 million |
| Proposed: technical institution 4M + chair 3M | 7 million |
Block 3, conclusion. The two remittances together come to USD 7 million, above the USD 5 million limit. XYZ Ltd. needs the RBI's prior approval, and the directors' view is incorrect.
The answer that lost marks tested each remittance on its own (4 and 3, each under 5) and said no approval was needed. Its provision was fine; its facts block misapplied the limit, so the conclusion fell with it. ICAI's answer adds that Rule 5 doesn't apply to payments from the remitter's RFC account: one line, if the facts mention one.
ICAI's answers for May 2026 and three earlier attempts are linked in CA Inter suggested answers May 2026 PDF. Hide an answer, write the three blocks, then compare.
What a CA Inter law mock test paper must test: the fixed slots
Paper 2 keeps its other laws in the same places, so a mock that moves them is practising a different paper. The figures are our tally of ICAI's last four Paper 2s, September 2025 through September 2026 (114 marks printed, 100 written). The full chapter table, with ICAI's section ranges, is in CA Inter chapter wise weightage for Jan 2027.
| Where in the paper | Law | Printed marks per paper | Which block May 2026 students lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(c) and Q6(c), plus MCQs | FEMA, 1999 | 14 in all four papers | Provision: the rule on holding foreign exchange not stated (Q6(c)) |
| Q2(c) and Q5(c), plus MCQs | General Clauses Act, 1897 | 12 to 14 | Provision: section 21's principle not explained (Q2(c)) |
| Q3(c), Q4(c) | Interpretation of statutes | 8 | Provision: rule not defined, exceptions missing |
| Q4(b) and Q5(b), plus MCQs | LLP Act, 2008 | 12 to 14 | None reported in May 2026 |
| The (a) and most (b) parts | Companies Act, 2013 | the rest | Mostly provisions and second sub-parts (table below) |
ICAI's own split: company law and LLP carry 70 marks in Part I of the syllabus and the other laws 30 in Part II, with LLP alone given 15% to 20% of Part I (ICAI section-wise weightage, PDF (opens in a new tab)).
So, for the "important questions" students search for: the six (c) parts have held the same laws in all four papers, and the FEMA ones carry limits you must compute. In company law, accounts of companies and share capital came every time. Which Law chapter to revise when is in the CA Inter revision planner for Jan 2027.
The MCQ cases work the same way. May 2026's six cases were CSR, an AGM, deposits, FEMA, an LLP, and a General Clauses Act case on a notice refused by the addressee and a distance to be measured. ICAI's key even marks MCQ 6 "No correct option": test every option against the provision.
CA Inter law amendments for Jan 2027 your mock must test
ICAI's study material for Paper 2 is updated to 31 July 2025; its January 2027 amendments document (PDF) (opens in a new tab) adds what changed in company law between 1 May 2025 and 30 June 2026. The applicable edition is the July 2024 one (Reprint August 2025 and onwards) together with the January 2027 RTP, per ICAI's study material notice (PDF) (opens in a new tab). Mark each change on the page ICAI names, so your book and your mock agree:
| Notification | Chapter | What changed | Study material page ICAI flags |
|---|---|---|---|
| G.S.R. 880(E), 1 Dec 2025 | 1. Preliminary | Small company: paid-up capital up to Rs 10 crore and turnover up to Rs 100 crore (the book still prints Rs 4 crore and Rs 40 crore) | 1.24 |
| G.S.R. 357(E), 30 May 2025 | 9. Accounts | e-Form AOC-1 and AOC-2; the Board's report adds sexual harassment complaint figures (received, disposed of, pending over 90 days) and a Maternity Benefit Act compliance statement; extracts of the Board's and auditor's reports filed with AOC-4 | 9.13, 9.36, 9.70 |
| G.S.R. 371(E), 6 Jun 2025 | 9. Accounts | A signed PDF of the financial statements attached to e-Form AOC-4 XBRL | 9.70 |
| G.S.R. 415(E), 27 May 2026 | 9. Accounts (CSR) | New rule 4A: CSR through zero coupon zero principal instruments, capped at 10% of the year's CSR spend; no impact assessment for projects funded this way | 9.57 |
| G.S.R. 416(E), 27 May 2026 | 9. Accounts (CSR) | Schedule VII item (xiii): subscribing to such instruments on the Social Stock Exchange | 9.61 |
| G.S.R. 359(E), 30 May 2025 | 10. Audit and auditors | The auditor's fraud report now goes online in ADT-4; the old letter-head and statement clauses are omitted | 10.38 |
How these turn into questions. A private company with Rs 8 crore of capital and Rs 90 crore of turnover is now small, unless it is a holding or subsidiary, registered under section 8 or governed by a special Act. A CSR case may ask about putting 15% of the CSR spend into such instruments; the 10% cap answers it. Four of the six changes sit in Chapter 9, which took 10 to 11 printed marks in every recent paper.
The document lists no change to the LLP Act or the three other laws. ICAI's January 2027 RTP for Paper 2 adds two CSR notifications of 27 May 2026; see CA Inter RTP Jan 2027 with answers. How applicability works for every paper is in what's applicable for your CA attempt.
May 2026 examiner comments on Paper 2, sorted by the block that failed
ICAI's May 2026 answers volume for Group I (PDF) (opens in a new tab) closes with the examiners' comments (pages 132 to 140; Law is on 134 to 137). Sorted by block:
| Question | Topic | Block that failed | ICAI's words |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(b) | Voluntary revision of accounts, section 131 and NCLT Rule 77 | Provision, second sub-part | "did not write all the relevant provisions"; the Rule 77 particulars "found to be incomplete" |
| Q2(a), first OR | Sweat equity shares | Facts (calculation), second sub-part | "could not justify the validity of the proposed issue with proper calculations of the prescribed limits"; "overlooked… the validity period of the special resolution" |
| Q2(a), second OR | Secured debentures and DRR | Not attempted | "majority of the examinees did not attempt the question" |
| Q2(b) | Satisfaction of charge | Provision, second sub-part | "brief conclusions without discussing the complete statutory provisions"; the Registrar's own power to record satisfaction missed |
| Q2(c) | Rescinding a notification, General Clauses Act | Provision | "did not explain the relevant legal principle and statutory provision" |
| Q3(a) | Offer for sale, section 28 | Provision | "vague answers"; offer for sale "confused" with an initial issue of shares |
| Q3(b) | Quorum and special resolution | Provision | conclusions not supported "with the relevant statutory provisions" |
| Q3(c), Q4(c) | Harmonious construction; ejusdem generis | Provision | "generalized answers"; term not defined, exceptions not stated |
| Q5(a) | Unpaid dividend and IEPF | Provision (numbers) | "did not mention the correct statutory time limits" |
| Q6(b) | Foreign company filing | Provision, second sub-part | documents not stated; "overlooked the consequences of non-compliance" on enforcing contracts |
| Q6(c) | FEMA, holding foreign exchange | Provision | "have not stated the relevant provisions" |
What the table says: in nine of the eleven rows, the block that failed was the provision. In four of them (Q1(b), Q2(b), Q2(c), Q3(b)) the examiners say most or many students still reached the right conclusion. Four rows also lost the second sub-part. In May 2026, Law marks went on incomplete law and unanswered halves more often than on wrong verdicts. ICAI's comments on the other five Inter papers are summarised in ICAI examiner comments for CA Inter May 2026.
Checking your own law mock, block by block
Use this on every descriptive part before you look at the total:
- Block 1: is the section or rule named, with every number it carries (days, limits, percentages) and its exception?
- Block 2: does each fact in the question appear in your answer, and is every limit worked out as a figure?
- Block 3: does one sentence answer exactly what was asked, in the question's own terms?
- Sub-parts: if the part asks two things, are there two conclusions?
- The (c) parts: for each interpretation rule, a definition, the exceptions and one illustration; for FEMA, the item of the schedule and the limit.
Log each miss as "block 1", "block 2", "block 3" or "sub-part". Two mocks usually show whether you need to reread sections or practise applying them. When to sit each round is set out in the CA Inter Jan 2027 mock test plan.
CA Inter Law test series with a checked copy
Our CA Inter Law test series is 3 full-syllabus Paper 2 mocks, set by 15+ qualified CA faculty on ICAI's latest pattern and pitched at the real exam's level. They test every amendment that applies for January 2027, the six above included. You answer by hand as you would in the hall and upload the pages as one PDF, with a single checked attempt allowed on each mock. Within 24 hours you get the copy back, marked, saying why each mark was cut, with the correct line to write. Preview pages of Mock Test 1 are open on that page. Law is also part of the CA Inter Group I mock tests.
Frequently asked questions
What is the right way to write a CA Inter law answer?
In three paragraphs: the provision with its numbers, the facts run through it ("In the given case…"), and a one-line conclusion. Where a part asks two things, repeat the three blocks for each. That is how ICAI's own suggested answers are laid out.
Which amendments apply to CA Inter Law for Jan 2027?
Six company law notifications issued between 1 May 2025 and 30 June 2026: small company limits, the Accounts Rules, XBRL filing, CSR through zero coupon zero principal instruments, Schedule VII and the ADT-4 fraud report. Nothing is listed for the LLP Act or the three other laws.
What are the important questions in CA Inter Law?
The six (c) parts: two FEMA, two General Clauses Act and two interpretation of statutes, in all four recent papers. LLP has filled Q4(b) and Q5(b). In company law, accounts of companies and share capital have come every time.
What is a good CA Inter law exemption strategy?
Score 60 or more in Law after writing every Group I paper, and if the group isn't cleared, Law stays exempt for the three examinations that follow (ICAI New Scheme FAQs, Q 3.19, PDF (opens in a new tab)). Worked marks tables: CA Inter passing marks Jan 2027. The May 2026 comments point to where the extra Law marks are: complete provisions and answered second sub-parts. A section-by-section plan for reaching 60 is in CA Inter law exemption strategy.
Is a free CA Inter law test series enough?
Start with ICAI's own papers, all linked on our CA Inter free resources page, and mark them yourself against ICAI's answers. Paid mocks give you unseen papers, plus a marked copy that names the reason for each lost mark.
Your next step in Law
Print ICAI's May 2026 Paper 2, write it in 3 hours from 2 PM, and check it with the five questions above before you read a single suggested answer. When you want new papers checked for you, our CA Inter Law mock tests cover Paper 2, and the home page lists our CA test series and CA mock tests level by level.