Qualification > Commerce
Accounts p1 doubts here!
Tohru Kyo Sohma:
ok i have accounting p1 CIE doubts here (counting on u dasith again ;) )
1.m/j 2005 qns 4,14,15,25 and 28
2.m/j 2006 qns 4,14,16 and 22
3.o/n 2006 qns 817,21,22 and 30
4.m/j 2007 qns.12,14,16 and 29
5.o/n 2007 qns 4,11,17 and 23
6.m/j 2008 qns 27
7.m/j 2003 qns 3,9,15,26 and 29
8.o/n 2003 5,18,23 and 28
9.m/j 2004 qns 6,12,17,27,28,29 ans 30
10.o/n 2004 qns 14
that all......i need explanation on it!
Tohru Kyo Sohma:
can someone explain bonus a right issue to me....i keep getting confused here?!!!
Dasith:
--- Quote from: mimiswift on May 27, 2011, 10:55:33 pm ---ok i have accounting p1 CIE doubts here (counting on u dasith again ;) )
1.m/j 2005 qns 4,14,15,25 and 28
2.m/j 2006 qns 4,14,16 and 22
3.o/n 2006 qns 817,21,22 and 30
4.m/j 2007 qns.12,14,16 and 29
5.o/n 2007 qns 4,11,17 and 23
6.m/j 2008 qns 27
7.m/j 2003 qns 3,9,15,26 and 29
8.o/n 2003 5,18,23 and 28
9.m/j 2004 qns 6,12,17,27,28,29 ans 30
10.o/n 2004 qns 14
that all......i need explanation on it!
--- End quote ---
lol big list out there !!
k lets start with the first
1)m/j 2005:
4) Ans is b because , u see they say net debtors & balance sheet always shows the net debtors i.e after deducting both bad & doubtful debts. so it seems that 2003 balnce is with deducting PFDD (provision for doubtful debts) , so in order to obtain PFDD we can get it like this :
Debtors - 0.05 Of Debtors = Net Debtors
i.e
x- 0.05x=17100
0.95x=17100
x=18000
so now we knw that debtors before deducting PFDD was 18000 to get PFDD for 2003 we Deduct the Net debtors from Debtors, i .e 18000-17100
so we get 900 for 2003
& 2004 we take: 19000x5/100 =950 (this is because this is control a/c balance control a/c only includes bad debts not PFDD ! )
ok so u can see provision increased from 900 to 950
difference is 50 & thats your ans !
14) A because
wages of staff for takin goods into saleable condition shuld be in Trading account not P/L , but they hav debited in P/L not trading , so its overstating GP as its not deducted , but as u knw the same GP is taken to NP & deducted from it all other expences including the wages of staff taking goods into saleable condition. so it deducted from GP there , so no effect with NP !
15)HEre u gotta take the Cost / Net realisable value ( sales - other expences in bringing good to saleable condition) u take which ever is lower of the two !
so the lowest in item 1 is cost = 5260
'' '' '' item 2 is Net rali.= 2260
total = 7520
25)semi variable is part variable & part Fixed !
so if it was fully variable a decrese in activity would have no effect on unit cost as varable costs vary in same proportion to units produced.But here it has fixed costs so a reduction in activity Dosent reduce the costs because a part of it is fixed , not all the cost is Fixed so it will increse Unit cost by not 20% but less than that because the cost is not fully a fixed cost.! (ans is D)
28)
here u find cost of both items frst i.e sales(in value - profit)
this cost as u knw includes both fixed & variable !
to get the variable costs we get the increase in costs for the given output levels
cost increased from 650 (i.e 750-100 ) to 750 (100-250 )
increase in cost is 100, so now we get increase in sales its 250
Cost has increased by 100 for an sales increase of 250 ! this in crease shows the variable costs as its the only cost which varys with output/ sales.
Increase in cost/ increase in output x 100 % = varable costs as % of sales
i.e 100/250 x 100 % = 40 %
so 40% is varable & the rest is of course contribution(FC + profit as % of sales )
60% is contribution!
Dasith:
2) m/j 2006
4) A because
stock bought 4 cash recorded @ (list price - Trade discount) in stock a/c
i.e 1600 as stock !
then cash is used to fund this cash of 1600 - 5% of 1600 = 1520 is used up for buying stock
Debtors of 400 written off so Debtors reduce by 400
Then total Current assets =28000+ 1600 - 1520 -400
14)stock valued @ lower of cost / Net realisable value !
so for each item u take the lowest out of the two
W= 15
x= 19
y= 15 *
z =23
Total = 72
* This is net realisable value , realisable value - selling expences
17-2 = 15
16)
Mark up is 25 % i.e profit is 25% of cost of sales
soooooo
if cost is 100 ,mark up is 25 & sales = 125
get wat i mean ! ? ?
so here sales is out of 125% to get cost of sales
we 200000/125 x 100 = 160000
& then we need purchases
Op stock - 15
+purchases x
cl stock (18)
cost of sal = 160
so u can find x now rite ? 160 = 15+ x -18
x=163 !!
22)
hmm its 80000 shres @ .50 par value
i.e 40000
+ rights issue 1:4 basis
i.e 80000x1/4 x 0.5 = 10000
so total capital is 50,000
(in share capital we only record @ par/nominal value/ price on share certificate not
market value.!!)
Dasith:
3)oct / nov 2006
8)here 5400 because they ask the purchase price !!
not the stock valued in stock a/c !!
5400 = 6000 x 95/100
or 6000-5% of 6000
17)4400 because u allow intrest on loan of 5% if theres no agreement!! (read the partnership act :P )
profit = 8850 -50(loan interest)
profit to be shared= 8800 / 2 9since partnership act says to share profit equally in case of no agreement !! )
21)
Net assets= Fixed + Net current assets/ working capital
so 1:4 rights issue means we recieve cash of
500/4 x 2 =250 &
we repay 50% of debentures @ par
we loose cash of 300 x 50/100 = (150)
so our total increase in net current assets/ working capital is 250-150
i.e 100
Net assets + increse =
1200 + 100 = 1300
22) 60 becoz
They ask the cash recieved
100 was the balnce in share capital & it increased to 130
with a bonus issue of 10 i.e (100/10 x 1)
so bonus issue has no effect on cash i.e 100 + 10 increases capital but not cash!
& then rights issue increases capital from 110 to 130
so cash increses by 20 too
Then we chek the share premium, bonus issue cannot add to share premium but has to be financed by either a revenue or appropriate capital reserve here the only reserve is share premium so we deduct 10 from ot
so share premium balance before rights issue is 50-10 i.e 40
now after rights issue it incresed to 80 ! , that means they paid extra 40 , so this adds up with the cash
so 20 + 40 = 60 total cash recieved :D
30)
here we take the equivilant units . hope u knw about it , anyway it assumes that 400 50 % complete goods
is 200 complete units ? get it , i.e 400 x 50/100 ,
so total complete units are 800 (200 + 600)
unit cost is (60000 + 30000 + 10000)/800 = 125
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version