ICAI examiner comments CA Foundation May 2026, paper-wise
ICAI's examiner comments for CA Foundation May 2026 sit in the last pages of the Foundation suggested answers volume, question by question, for Paper 1 (Accounting) and Paper 2 (Business Laws). In Accounting the marks went on wrong figures carried through, missing working notes and half-answered theory; in Business Laws they went on general answers that never applied the section to the facts.
ICAI's Foundation suggested answers page (opens in a new tab) still lists May 2026 as its newest attempt (checked 29 October 2026), which makes these the freshest comments you have for January 2027. Further down, a table lines them up against January 2026: whatever went wrong in both attempts is where to start. Quotes are ICAI's own words, linked to the PDF; the "write instead" advice is ours.
ICAI examiner comments CA Foundation May 2026: the summary
| Paper | Where marks were lost, per the examiners (May 2026) |
|---|---|
| 1. Accounting | Q2(a): accounts mixed up and "unable to provide the necessary working notes"; Q3(b): wrong sales figure "resulting in errors in the subsequent calculations"; Q6(b): only defined the Trial Balance and "lost marks" |
| 2. Business Laws | Q1(a): "generalized answers instead of analysing the facts in the light of the relevant legal provisions"; Q2(b): the question was on equity shares with differential voting rights, but many compared ordinary equity and preference shares |
Source: Foundation volume, May 2026, PDF (opens in a new tab), section "Examiners' comments on the performance of the examinees" (pages 131–133).
Paper 1: Accounting
The examiners' main point: one wrong figure, a missing working note or an unanswered second part cost the marks.
- Q1(a), true or false with reasons: "Few examinees were unable to give correct logical reasoning in 2 to 3 sub parts due to lack of clear knowledge."
- Q1(b), accounting policies: "A significant number of examinees were not able to explain accounting policies and rather explained accounting concepts and applications."
- Q2(a), Machinery, Provision for Depreciation and Machinery Disposal Accounts: many were "often mixing the Provision for Depreciation Account with the Machinery Account. Some examinees were unable to provide the necessary working notes to support their calculations".
- Q3(b), final accounts from incomplete records: "Many examinees were not able to calculate the correct amount of sales resulting in errors in the subsequent calculations and the final accounts."
- Q4(a), death of a partner mid-year: many "could not calculate deceased partner's share in the profit upto the date of death of partner as well as computation of interest on capital up to the date of death of partner".
- Q5(b), Income and Expenditure Account of a non-profit organisation: many "could not make appropriate adjustment relating to subscription, consumption of medicines etc."
- Q6(b), Trial Balance: "many examinees only defined the Trial Balance and could not explain the types of errors that are not revealed by its agreement. Consequently, they did not address the second part of the question and lost marks."
Write instead:
- For every true-or-false, write the reason in one line: the rule, then why the statement fits it or not. The question asks for reasons, so a bare "True" leaves out what was asked.
- Put each figure the main account depends on (sales, profit up to the date of death, interest on capital, subscription income) in a numbered working note, so a reader can see every step.
- In a two-part theory question, give each part its own heading. Q6(b) asked for a definition and the errors a Trial Balance does not reveal; the examiners say leaving out that second part is what lost marks.
The topics to put first in Accounting are in CA Foundation Accounts mock test: important topics.
Paper 2: Business Laws
The examiners' main point: students often knew the section, but did not apply it to the names and facts in the question. Five of ICAI's cases, worked with the provision, the facts and the conclusion, are in CA Foundation law case study questions and answers.
- Q1(a), counter-offer: "The majority of examinees were unable to correctly answer the question with reference to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 relating to counter-offer and the absence of consensus ad idem. Many examinees provided generalized answers instead of analysing the facts in the light of the relevant legal provisions".
- Q1(c), Partnership Act after dissolution: "Most of the examinees did not understand the requirement of the question and they gave a generalized answer."
- Q2(a), sale on approval: most knew Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, but "only a few were able to correctly apply Section 42"; many also missed Sections 55, 56 and 61 in part (iii).
- Q2(b), Companies Act, 2013: "Many instead explained the distinction between Equity Shares and Preference Shares, indicating a lack of understanding of the specific concept tested in the question" (equity shares with differential voting rights).
- Q4(a), rights of a surety: many "failed to correctly compute the surety's liability after accounting for the value of the securities lost by the creditor", and discharge by variance "was often mentioned only as a conclusion, without adequate legal reasoning".
- Q4(b), negotiation: many could not "clearly distinguish between the different modes of negotiation".
- Q6(a), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: confusion "regarding the concept and legal validity of a self-drawn and self-accepted bill of exchange".
- Q6(b), unpaid seller: most could not explain when an unpaid seller "may reserve the right of disposal".
Write instead: answer every case question in four short steps: the provision (Act and section), the facts that matter, the application of one to the other, and a one-line conclusion that answers exactly what was asked. When a question names a specific concept (shares with differential voting rights, a self-drawn bill), define that exact concept first, so the examiner sees you answered the question set, not a nearby one.
More on how ICAI sets this paper is in CA Foundation Law mock test.
Papers 3 and 4: what ICAI publishes for the MCQ papers
For Quantitative Aptitude and Business Economics, ICAI's volume prints all 100 questions of each paper and an answer key, with no examiner comments. One May 2026 detail: under the Paper 3 key, ICAI marks Q41 and Q69 with "None of the options are correct".
What repeated: ICAI examiner comments CA Foundation Jan 2026 vs May 2026
The January 2026 comments come from ICAI's Summary of Examiner's Comment, January 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), also printed in the Foundation volume, January 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), pages 122–126. These went wrong in both attempts:
| Topic | January 2026 | May 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Accounting: reasons for true or false | Q1(a): no correct reasoning in "2 to 3 sub parts" | Q1(a): the same, in "2 to 3 sub parts" |
| Accounting: theory on the wrong point | Q1(b): "generic advantages and limitations" of Accounting Standards | Q1(b): accounting concepts instead of accounting policies |
| Accounting: partnership figures | Q3(b): sacrificing ratio; Q4(a): gaining ratio | Q4(a): profit and interest on capital up to the date of death |
| Accounting: non-profit organisations | Q3(a): opening capital fund, salaries and electricity | Q5(b): subscription, consumption of medicines |
| Accounting: one wrong figure in final accounts | Q4(b): closing stock, provision for doubtful debts | Q3(b): sales |
| Accounting: not answering what was asked | Q5(c): entries for issue of shares instead of forfeiture and re-issue | Q6(b): second part of the question left out |
| Law: general answers | Q1(a), Q3(a), Q4(c), Q5(a) | Q1(a), Q1(c), Q4(b) |
| Law: contract of guarantee | Q5(c): Sections 142–144, invalid guarantee | Q4(a): surety's liability and discharge |
| Law: Sale of Goods Act | Q3(c): Sections 19–23; Q5(a): Section 16; Q6(c): specific performance | Q2(a): Sections 42, 55, 56, 61; Q6(b): unpaid seller |
| Law: Negotiable Instruments Act | Q6(a): days to file a complaint after a cheque is dishonoured | Q4(b): modes of negotiation; Q6(a): self-drawn bill |
| Law: Partnership Act | Q3(a): mutual agency | Q1(c): winding up after dissolution |
The two biggest repeats: in Accounting, questions answered partly or differently from what was asked; in Law, general answers without the section applied to the facts.
How to use the examiner comments for CA Foundation Jan 2027
CA Foundation is on 3, 5, 7 and 9 January 2027; Papers 1 and 2 run from 2 to 5 PM, with 15 minutes of reading time from 1:45 PM (ICAI, PDF (opens in a new tab)). Work the comments into your revision at three points:
- Now: open the May 2026 and January 2026 Accounting and Law papers on our CA Foundation past papers page, read each comment next to its question, and mark the repeat topics in your notes. ICAI's paper-wise answer PDFs for May 2026 are listed in CA Foundation suggested answers May 2026.
- After every mock: go through your copy line by line with the checklist below. Our CA Foundation Jan 2027 mock test plan gives dates for all three mocks of each paper, and step marking in CA exams explains why each written step counts.
- In the final week: pick each repeat topic once and write a fresh answer to it against the clock, without notes.
| What the examiners saw | Your check before handing in |
|---|---|
| Bare true or false | One-line reason with every statement |
| Half a theory question | Every part of the question has its own heading |
| One wrong figure carried through | Key figures in numbered working notes |
| Different question answered | Re-read the last line of the question before writing |
| General law answer | Section, facts, application, conclusion |
| Specific concept missed | The exact concept named in the question defined first |
How the four papers are set and marked is in CA Foundation exam pattern and marking. The same habits cost marks at higher levels too: see ICAI examiner comments for CA Inter May 2026 and ICAI examiner comments for CA Final.
Frequently asked questions
Where can I find ICAI examiner comments for CA Foundation May 2026?
At the end of ICAI's Foundation suggested answers volume for May 2026 (PDF) (opens in a new tab), in the section "Examiners' comments on the performance of the examinees". It is linked as "Foundation Group Suggested Answers" on ICAI's May 2026 Foundation page (opens in a new tab).
Where are the CA Foundation examiner comments for Jan 2026?
As a separate "Summary of Examiner's Comment" PDF (opens in a new tab) on ICAI's January 2026 Foundation page (opens in a new tab), and at the end of that attempt's Foundation volume.
Does ICAI give examiner comments for Maths and Economics?
No. For Papers 3 and 4, both MCQ papers, the volume gives the questions and an answer key only. The examiner comments cover Accounting and Business Laws.
How should I write the CA Foundation exam to avoid these mistakes?
In Accounting, show key figures as numbered working notes and answer every part of a theory question. In Business Laws, write the section, apply it to the facts and give a clear conclusion.
Are the September 2026 CA Foundation examiner comments out?
Not on ICAI's Foundation suggested answers page (opens in a new tab) as of 29 October 2026; the newest attempt on that page is still May 2026.
Test these fixes in a full Foundation paper
A checklist only helps once you have used it under exam conditions. Our CA mock tests for Foundation are new full-syllabus papers set to the latest ICAI pattern, with every amendment applicable for January 2027 tested. In Accounting and Business Laws you write the paper by hand and upload a single PDF; your checked copy comes back within 24 hours, marked step by step the ICAI way, with the reason for each cut and the line you should have written.
All four papers are on the CA Foundation test series page, and every level is on our CA test series home page. For ICAI's free MTPs, RTPs and past papers, use CA Foundation free resources.