All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Class 12 Exam  >  Class 12 Questions  >  Treatment of "Actual liability on account of ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c?
Clear all your Class 12 doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund ...
Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c

The treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c can be explained as follows:

1. Understanding the concept of retirement revaluation a/c
Retirement revaluation a/c is a nominal account that is prepared to record the revaluation of assets and liabilities during the retirement of a partner. It helps in determining the retiring partner's share in the firm's profits or losses.

2. Identifying the nature of the actual liability on account of employees provident fund
The given statement suggests that the actual liability on account of employees provident fund is only 3,000. This indicates that the amount recorded in the books of accounts as the liability for employees provident fund is higher than the actual liability. As a result, the retirement revaluation a/c needs to be adjusted to reflect the actual liability.

3. Adjustment in the retirement revaluation a/c
To adjust the retirement revaluation a/c, the following steps can be followed:

- Debit the retirement revaluation a/c: Reduce the amount of the liability on account of employees provident fund by 3,000. This can be done by debiting the retirement revaluation a/c with 3,000.
- Credit the partners' capital accounts: As the actual liability is lower than the recorded liability, the partners' capital accounts need to be reduced by the same amount. This can be done by crediting the partners' capital accounts proportionately.

4. Example of the adjustment in retirement revaluation a/c
Let's consider an example where there are two partners, A and B, and the recorded liability on account of employees provident fund is 10,000. The adjustment would be as follows:

- Debit retirement revaluation a/c: 3,000
- Credit partner A's capital account: 1,500 (assuming A has a 50% share in the profits/losses)
- Credit partner B's capital account: 1,500 (assuming B has a 50% share in the profits/losses)

5. Impact on the partners' capital accounts
The adjustment in the retirement revaluation a/c will result in a decrease in the partners' capital accounts. The decrease will be in proportion to their share in the firm's profits/losses. This adjustment ensures that the partners' capital accounts reflect the actual liability on account of employees provident fund.

Conclusion
The treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c involves adjusting the retirement revaluation a/c and the partners' capital accounts. This adjustment ensures that the actual liability on account of employees provident fund is reflected accurately in the financial statements.
Explore Courses for Class 12 exam

Similar Class 12 Doubts

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."The language is plain and clear, as is the statutes history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Youngs complaint. It said that respecting the acts "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.But, in a brief supporting Ms. Youngs claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Departments stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.Q. As per the passage which of the following is not true?

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."The language is plain and clear, as is the statutes history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Youngs complaint. It said that respecting the acts "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.But, in a brief supporting Ms. Youngs claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Departments stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.Q. What is the central idea of the passage?

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."The language is plain and clear, as is the statutes history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Youngs complaint. It said that respecting the acts "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.But, in a brief supporting Ms. Youngs claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Departments stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.Q. Which of the following type of women workers may require additional assistance while pregnant?

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."The language is plain and clear, as is the statutes history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Youngs complaint. It said that respecting the acts "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.But, in a brief supporting Ms. Youngs claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Departments stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.Q. Which of the following is the strongest rebuttal of the authors argument?

Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c?
Question Description
Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c?.
Solutions for Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c?, a detailed solution for Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? has been provided alongside types of Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Treatment of "Actual liability on account of employees provident fund was only 3,000" in retirement revaluation a/c? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.
Explore Courses for Class 12 exam
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup