This podcast explores whether switching from expensing tocapitalizing borrowing costs for qualifying assets is a policy change or an error rectification. Ind AS 23 mandates capitalization, meaning prior expensing was a mistake in applying policy. Per Ind AS 8, this qualifies as a prior period error, necessitating a retrospective restatement to correct past non-compliance. Notably, the statement of cash flows remains consistent; interest payments are always reported as financing activities, regardless of whether costs were capitalized or expensed in the accrual statements.

Reporting in absolute rupees violates Clause 5, Schedule III of the Companies Act 2013. Large entities with turnovers exceeding ₹100 crore must round to lakhs, millions, or crores. Expert Ind AS guidance is available through the GAAP Advisors repository of 4,500+ resolved issues.

A quick, practical breakdown of how investments in mutual fund units should be classified under Ind AS 109. We discuss why mutual funds cannot be measured at FVOCI, why dividends aren’t “interest,” why these units are neither equity nor debt instruments, and why they end up as mandatory FVTPL.
This issue comes from the GAAP Advisors Issue Repository (4,500+ Ind AS/IGAAP issues) and was featured in the 228th edition of the GAAP Advisors TASK Weekly Newsletter by CA Manish C. Iyer.
Views are personal; please consult an expert before acting on them.

The podcast discusses an example of non-cash transaction included in statement of cash flows by a listed company in its audited and published financial statements. The observation was featured in 229th Edition of GAAP Advisors TASK Weekly Newsletter authored by CA Manish C. Iyer published on LinkedIn

This podcast examines the accounting criteria required to maintain the status of a non-current asset held for sale when a transaction is delayed beyond the standard one-year timeframe. It is discussed in 229th edition of GAAP Advisors TASK Weekly Newsletter published on LinkedIn authored by CA Manish C. Iyer, Director, GAAP Advisors.

While financial regulations typically require a sale to be finalized within twelve months, the source clarifies that extensions are permitted if the delay results from external factors beyond the company's control. To justify this continued classification, an entity must demonstrate a persistent commitment to the sale through active marketing at a realistic price and documented board intentions. If these specific conditions are not met, the asset must be returned to its original category, such as property, plant, and equipment. Additionally, the text notes that while these items are reported under current assets, they retain their original "non-current" terminology to reflect their underlying nature. Detailed references to Ind AS 105 provide the legal framework for determining when a sale is considered highly probable despite unforeseen setbacks.

The 230th edition of the GAAP Advisors TASK Weekly Newsletter focuses on enhancing the quality of financial reporting in India by clarifying complex accounting standards. One primary section addresses the classification of trade receivables and payables, arguing that these items should be categorized as current assets or liabilities because they are integral to an entity's normal operating cycle. Another major portion of the document analyzes a specific case study where a company incorrectly reported interest income and cash flows, leading to a violation of Ind AS 7 and Ind AS 109 protocols. The newsletter points out that obscuring material information through improper aggregation prevents financial statements from providing a true and fair view of a business's health. Additionally, the source promotes various advisory services and educational resources, including books and online repositories authored by CA Manish C. Iyer. By highlighting these technical discrepancies, the publication aims to provide professional guidance for auditors and accountants navigating Indian Accounting Standards.

This document from GAAP Advisors provides professional feedback on a series of proposed accounting amendments to IAS 28, specifically regarding the Fair Value Option for investments. The author, CA Manish C. Iyer, addresses the International Accounting Standards Board's plan to clarify which organisations can measure associates and joint ventures at fair value through profit or loss. While the firm supports the shift toward defining entities by their core investment activities, they suggest that the option should be broader. Specifically, the response recommends that all entities be permitted to use fair value if they have access to Level 1 quoted market prices. Additionally, the text outlines proposed wording for accounting transitions, arguing that the choice to use fair value should not be limited to the date of initial recognition.