CORAA
University · ICAI AQMM v2.0 aligned

AI Audit Tool Evaluation Checklist.

46 evaluation criteria across 6 pillars — compliance, data security, audit-grade features, integrations, pricing and vendor quality. Mapped to ICAI Audit Quality Maturity Model v2.0 (ratified August 2024). For Indian Chartered Accountants selecting AI audit software in 2026 and beyond.

46 criteria6 evaluation pillarsICAI AQMM v2.0 mappedFY 2026-27 ready

How to score

For each criterion, score the tool you are evaluating as 0 (absent), 1 (partial / workaround), or 2 (fully implemented and verified). Maximum score is 92. We recommend the following bands:

  • 78+ (85 %) — proceed to procurement. The tool is ready for audit-grade use.
  • 6477 (70–85 %) — viable, but verify the partial scores with the vendor before contract.
  • 4663 (50–70 %) — significant gaps. Use only for limited workflows; expect manual work for the rest.
  • < 46 (under 50 %) — not audit-grade. Consider alternatives or wait for a major update.

For procurement defensibility, document the scorecard, include it in the engagement file under SA 230, and refresh annually. ICAI peer review and NFRA inspection have started to examine vendor selection — a documented evaluation is your best defence.

Pillar 1 of 6

1 · India-specific compliance

AI tools built for US GAAP or generic IFRS audits do not understand Indian regulatory specifics. Check that the tool natively handles statutes that an Indian CA touches every day.

  1. 1.1Native CARO 2020 reporting (21 clauses)
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    CARO 2020 is mandatory for most companies. The tool should auto-flag CARO-relevant findings and pre-fill clause-level observations.
  2. 1.2Schedule III mapping (Div I + Div II + Div III)
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    Schedule III line-item mapping, ageing tables (MSME vs non-MSME, CWIP, trade receivables), 11 mandatory ratios, and disclosure templates.
  3. 1.3Form 3CD pre-fill (all 41 clauses)
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    Section 44AB tax audit. The tool should populate clauses 21(d) [40A(3)], 31 [269ST/SS/T], related-party disclosures from ledger data.
  4. 1.4Ind AS framework handling (Ind AS 115 / 116 / 109 / 19)
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    Companies above ₹250 crore net worth and listed entities follow Ind AS. The tool must distinguish AS vs Ind AS and apply the right disclosure rules.
  5. 1.5GST + Income Tax reconciliation (GSTR-2A / 2B / 3B / 9C / 26AS)
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    Indirect tax reconciliation is a major audit task. Native GST and TDS portal integration saves days per engagement.
  6. 1.6ICAI Standards on Auditing (SA 200 — SA 720) baked in
    AQMM · Quality Reviewer Engagement
    SA 230 documentation, SA 240 JE testing, SA 320 materiality, SA 530 sampling, SA 700 reporting — should be operationalised in the workflow, not just referenced.
  7. 1.7Income Tax Act 2025 ready (effective 1 April 2026)
    AQMM · Knowledge Updation
    IT Act 1961 is repealed w.e.f. FY 2026-27. The tool should reflect IT Act 2025 sections in tax-audit working papers from that date.
  8. 1.8NFRA inspection / ICAI peer review readiness
    AQMM · Quality Reviewer Engagement
    The audit trail must withstand NFRA inspection (for PIE audits) and ICAI peer review. Generated working papers should follow SQM 1 expectations.
Pillar 2 of 6

2 · Data security & residency

Audit data is among the most sensitive client data a CA firm holds. DPDPA 2023 added explicit consent and breach-notification obligations. NFRA and ICAI peer review increasingly examine vendor security.

  1. 2.1India-only hosting (no offshore mirroring)
    AQMM · Information Technology
    DPDPA 2023, RBI data localisation for banks, and client expectations all push toward Indian data residency. Ask for the AWS / Azure region and SLA.
  2. 2.2Customer data NOT sent to public LLM APIs
    OpenAI / Anthropic / Google APIs may retain prompts for safety / abuse-detection windows. Audit data should never leave a secure perimeter.
  3. 2.3Customer data NOT used to train foundation models
    Audit findings are evidence, not training material. Vendor contract should explicitly prohibit using customer data for model training.
  4. 2.4ISO 27001 + SOC 2 Type II certified
    Industry-standard third-party security audits. Type II covers operating effectiveness over a period (not just point-in-time).
  5. 2.5DPDPA 2023 compliant
    Consent management, data principal rights, breach notification within 72 hours, data retention limits.
  6. 2.6AES-256 at rest + TLS 1.3 in transit
    Industry baseline. Tools using weaker encryption should be flagged immediately.
  7. 2.7Per-tenant data isolation
    Multi-tenant SaaS must guarantee logical (preferably physical) separation. Ask for the architecture diagram.
  8. 2.8Cryptographic, immutable audit trail
    Every action by a user or AI process should be logged with a timestamp that cannot be altered retrospectively. Required for SA 230 documentation defence.
Pillar 3 of 6

3 · Audit-grade features

Generic AI tools are great for marketing copy. Audit-grade AI requires deterministic outputs, reproducible flags, and an evidence trail that survives independent review.

  1. 3.1Deterministic outputs (same input → same output)
    Probabilistic LLM outputs are unsuitable for evidence paths. Findings must be reproducible.
  2. 3.2100 % population testing (not statistical sampling alone)
    AI removes the cost barrier to full-population testing. SA 530 sampling is no longer the only option for many procedures.
  3. 3.3Every flag links to the underlying transaction
    No "AI said so" black boxes. Every observation should drill down to the ledger entry, voucher, or document that triggered it.
  4. 3.4Activatable / mutable rules per client
    A trading company has different RPT patterns from a manufacturer. The tool must allow per-client rule tuning while keeping defaults.
  5. 3.5Three-way matching (PO / GRN / Invoice / Ledger)
    OCR + matching across documents catches cut-off and existence issues that sampling misses.
  6. 3.6CARO 2020 clause pre-fill from ledger
    Saves 15-20% of typical engagement hours. Auditor reviews and adjusts; doesn't start from blank.
  7. 3.7SA 240 journal entry testing with red flags
    AQMM · Engagement Execution
    Period-end, round numbers, manual, unusual accounts, suspense — automated detection across 100% of JEs.
  8. 3.8Estimate auditing (SA 540) — ECL, gratuity, deferred tax
    Comparison of management's estimate against an independently developed range; documentation of assumptions tested.
Pillar 4 of 6

4 · Integration & workflow

A tool that delivers great AI but lives outside your existing ERP / workflow stack adds friction. Native integrations and exports matter.

  1. 4.1Tally ERP native connector
    Tally still runs majority of Indian SME accounting. Direct GL / TB / voucher sync (not Excel export) is the gold standard.
  2. 4.2SAP / Oracle / NetSuite / Zoho / Busy integration
    Mid-market and listed entities. Excel / CSV import is acceptable; native API is better.
  3. 4.3GST portal integration (GSTR-2A / 2B / 3B / 9C)
    Automatic pull of returns + reconciliation against books. Manual download is a friction point.
  4. 4.4Income tax portal integration (26AS / TDS challans)
    TDS reconciliation against 26AS is mandatory. Direct portal integration removes manual upload steps.
  5. 4.5Multi-user, role-based access
    Partner / manager / staff with different permission levels. Audit trail captures who-did-what.
  6. 4.6Working paper export in firm's templates
    Auditor-side review needs working papers in the firm's template format, not the vendor's. Customisable templates are essential.
  7. 4.7Audit programme + checklist library
    Engagement-level audit programme, customisable checklists, evidence linking — foundation of working paper system.
  8. 4.8Engagement quality review workflow
    AQMM · Quality Reviewer Engagement
    EQR / EQCR for PIE audits per SQM 1. Tool should support reviewer comments, sign-off, lock workflow.
Pillar 5 of 6

5 · Pricing & ROI

AI audit tools range widely in pricing model. Be wary of per-user pricing that punishes team growth, and tools that bill on transaction volume.

  1. 5.1Per-entity (not per-user) pricing
    Per-user pricing punishes adding articles, juniors, and reviewers — exactly the people who use the tool most. Per-entity aligns with engagement-level value.
  2. 5.2Unlimited users on all tiers
    Predictable cost as the team grows. Don't pay more because you added a paid article.
  3. 5.3No per-transaction or per-ledger usage fee
    Punishes the kind of full-population testing that AI enables. Look for flat per-entity pricing.
  4. 5.4All features included on every tier
    Feature-gating critical workflow capabilities (e.g., Form 3CD or CARO) into "Pro" tiers is a red flag.
  5. 5.5Pricing in INR with GST inclusive
    Dollar-pricing tools may have currency-fluctuation risk and unclear GST treatment.
  6. 5.6Free trial or demo with real client data
    A demo with sanitised sample data is not enough. Insist on processing one of your actual engagement files before signing.
  7. 5.7Vendor publishes ROI / hours-saved data
    Look for case studies with hours-saved numbers, not vague "improved efficiency" claims.
Pillar 6 of 6

6 · Quality & vendor commitment

Vendor commitment to Indian regulatory specifics matters because rules change every year. Tools that auto-update for new Ind AS, new CARO clauses, new SAs save you the cost of remapping.

  1. 6.1Explicit alignment with ICAI AQMM v2.0
    AQMM v2.0 was ratified by ICAI Council on 22 August 2024. Vendors should publish how their tool maps to the 8 AQMM dimensions.
  2. 6.2Auto-update on new SA / CARO / Schedule III amendments
    Schedule III had a major amendment in 2021 (MSME, ageing, ratios). Tools should push these as platform updates, not require manual re-mapping.
  3. 6.3Vendor publishes NFRA / ICAI inspection responses
    If a vendor has been called on by a regulator, how did they respond? Transparent vendors publish this; opaque vendors are a risk.
  4. 6.4Trust centre with live status / breach history
    Security commitment is verifiable — published SOC 2 reports, status page, breach disclosure history.
  5. 6.5India-based engineering and support team
    For an India-focused product, having an India-resident team that understands Companies Act / Income Tax nuances is non-negotiable.
  6. 6.6Defined support SLA (audit-season escalation)
    September-November (tax audit) and April-June (statutory audit) are peak seasons. Vendor must commit to faster SLA during these windows.
  7. 6.7Reference customers in similar firm-size bracket
    Talk to 2-3 firms of similar size already using the tool. Their feedback is worth more than vendor demos.

How CORAA scores on this checklist

We score CORAA against this checklist below. Cross-verify against our Trust Centre, product pages and the llms.txt manifest. The scorecard reflects the position as of 28 May 2026.

Pillar
CORAA score
Maximum
1 · India-specific compliance1416
2 · Data security & residency1516
3 · Audit-grade features1416
4 · Integration & workflow1216
5 · Pricing & ROI1214
6 · Quality & vendor commitment1114
Total7892
Self-assessment. We recommend you score independently using the same criteria, request evidence for each claim, and validate with reference customers.

Frequently asked questions

How do I evaluate AI audit software for my CA firm?+
Use a structured scorecard with 6 dimensions — India-specific compliance, data security and residency, audit-grade features, integration and workflow, pricing and ROI, vendor quality and commitment. Score each criterion 0 (absent), 1 (partial), or 2 (full). A total score above 70/100 indicates a serious candidate.
What is ICAI AQMM v2.0?+
The ICAI Audit Quality Maturity Model v2.0 was ratified by the ICAI Council on 22 August 2024. It is a self-assessment framework for CA firms across 8 dimensions of audit quality — Practice Management, Human Resources, Technology Adoption, Knowledge Updation, Engagement Acceptance, Engagement Execution, Quality Reviewer Engagement, and Other Engagements. AI tool selection has direct impact on Technology Adoption, Engagement Execution and Quality Reviewer Engagement dimensions.
Is AI usage in audit permitted by ICAI?+
Yes — ICAI explicitly supports technology adoption to improve audit quality. The Code of Ethics requires the auditor to exercise professional skepticism and judgement (which AI does not replace) but does not prohibit AI-assisted execution. The auditor remains responsible for the conclusions and the documentation under SA 230.
What is the difference between AI audit tools and traditional audit software?+
Traditional audit software (CCH, Practice CS, CaseWare, etc.) digitises the workflow and stores working papers. AI audit tools perform the JUDGEMENT WORK at draft level — anomaly detection, narrative generation, sample selection optimisation, Schedule III mapping, CARO observation drafting. The two are complementary; AI tools sit on top of (or replace) the execution layer.
Why is India hosting important?+
DPDPA 2023, RBI guidelines for banks, sectoral norms for insurance and payments, and client expectations all push toward Indian data residency. Audit data is highly sensitive — tax records, MIS, board minutes, related-party transactions — and most clients will require contractual assurance of India-only processing.
Should AI audit tools use public LLMs like ChatGPT or Claude?+
No — for audit data, public LLM APIs are problematic because (a) prompts may be retained for safety / abuse-detection windows, (b) no enterprise privacy SLA in standard tiers, (c) data residency is typically US / EU. Audit-grade AI tools should use proprietary models on dedicated Indian infrastructure with explicit no-training and no-retention guarantees.
What is "deterministic AI" in audit context?+
Deterministic AI means the same input always produces the same output. For evidence paths (flags, classifications, working papers), reproducibility is non-negotiable — a peer reviewer or NFRA inspector should be able to re-run the audit and arrive at the same findings. Probabilistic LLM generation is unsuitable for evidence; deterministic rule engines + classifiers are the gold standard.
How much does AI audit software cost in India?+
Pricing varies widely. Per-entity flat pricing (₹2,000-3,000 per entity for mid-tier tools) is more predictable than per-user or per-transaction models. For a firm with 50-100 entities, expect ₹1.5-3 lakh per year for a comprehensive AI audit platform. Cost should be evaluated against hours saved — typically 25-40% on routine procedures, which translates to 3-5x ROI in the first year.
Can AI replace junior auditors?+
No — AI replaces ROUTINE EXECUTION, not judgement. The audit profession is shifting toward higher-judgement work (risk assessment, complex estimates, going concern, fraud assessment, audit reporting). Juniors are now supervised on judgement areas, while AI handles vouching, reconciliation, JE testing. In India's CA-shortage context, AI enables firm growth without proportionate hiring.
How does an AI audit tool handle SA 240 fraud risk?+
SA 240 requires the auditor to test journal entries for fraud indicators — period-end timing, manual posting, round amounts, unusual account combinations, revenue recognition. A good AI audit tool runs all these red-flag tests on 100% of JEs (not a sample), flags the highest-risk entries for auditor review, and links each flag to the underlying transaction for documentation.

See how the calculators rate.

CORAA University's 22 free interactive calculators are built on the same standards-anchored content that informed this checklist.

All calculatorsCORAA Trust CentreCORAA vs AssureAI