Ind AS Technical Facilitation Group (ITFG) Clarification Bulletin 16
September, 05th 2018
Ind AS Technical Facilitation Group (ITFG) Clarification Bulletin 16
Ind AS Technical Facilitation Group' (ITFG) of Ind AS Implementation Group has been
constituted for providing clarifications on timely basis on various issues related to the
applicability and /or implementation of Ind AS under the Companies (Indian Accounting
Standards) Rules, 2015, raised by preparers, users and other stakeholders. Ind AS Technical
Facilitation Group (ITFG) considered some issues received from members and decided to issue
following clarifications1 on September 04, 2018:
Issue 1: A 100% subsidiary (S Ltd.) gives a financial guarantee to a bank in respect of a
loan obtained by its parent (P Ltd.) from the said bank. No guarantee fee/commission is
charged by S Ltd. from P Ltd. P Ltd. accounts for the loan in its stand-alone as well as
consolidated financial statements on amortised cost basis. The following accounting issues
arise in the context of application of Ind AS by S Ltd. and P Ltd.:
(i) How will the financial guarantee be accounted for in the separate financial statements
of S Ltd.? S Ltd. has accumulated losses and has not paid any dividend in the past.
(ii) How would financial guarantee be subsequently measured in the separate financial
statements of S Ltd.?
(iii) How should the financial guarantee be accounted for in the separate financial
statements of P Ltd.?
(i) The following analysis is based on the presumption that the financial guarantee given by S
Ltd. (subsidiary) meets the definition of a `financial guarantee contract' under Ind AS 109,
Paragraph B2.5 of Ind AS 109, inter-alia, states that, "If this Standard applies, paragraph 5.1.1
requires the issuer to recognise a financial guarantee contract initially at fair value. If the
financial guarantee contract was issued to an unrelated party in a stand-alone arm's length
transaction, its fair value at inception is likely to equal the premium received, unless there is
evidence to the contrary. Subsequently, unless the financial guarantee contract was designated
at inception as at fair value through profit or loss or unless paragraphs 220.127.116.11.23 and
B3.2.12B3.2.17 apply (when a transfer of a financial asset does not qualify for derecognition or
the continuing involvement approach applies), the issuer measures it at the higher of:
Clarifications given or views expressed by the Ind AS Technical Facilitation Group (ITFG) represent the views of
the ITFG and are not necessarily the views of the Ind AS Implementation Group or the Council of the Institute. The
clarifications/views are based on the accounting principles as on the date the Group finalises the particular
clarification. The date of finalisation of this Bulletin is September 04, 2018. The clarification must, therefore, be
read in the light of any amendments and/or other developments subsequent to the issuance of clarifications by the
ITFG. The clarifications given are only for the accounting purpose. The commercial substance of the transaction and
other legal and regulatory aspects has not been considered and may have to be evaluated on case to case basis.
(i) the amount determined in accordance with Section 5.5; and
(ii) the amount initially recognised less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income
recognised in accordance with the principles of Ind AS 182."
As per the above paragraph, issuer of a financial guarantee is required to recognise the financial
guarantee contract initially at its fair value. This requirement will also apply if the guarantee is
issued by a subsidiary in respect of a loan obtained by its parent and no fee/commission is
charged by the subsidiary for issuing the guarantee. Accordingly, in the given case, S Ltd. is
required to initially recognise a liability (a deferred income such as `unearned financial guarantee
commission') in its separate financial statements.
As regards to determination of the fair value of the financial guarantee, in the absence of any
specific guidance on the issue in Ind AS 109 or in any other Ind AS and considering the broad
principles of Ind AS 113, Fair Value Measurement, the following approaches may be
One possible measure of the fair value of the financial guarantee (at initial recognition)
may be the amount that an unrelated, independent third party would have charged for
issuing the financial guarantee.
Another possible approach may be to estimate the fair value of the financial guarantee as
the present value of the amount by which the interest (or other similar) cash flows in
respect of the loan are lower than what they would have been if the loan were an
Yet another possible approach may be to estimate the fair value of the financial guarantee
as the present value of the probability-weighted cash flows that may arise under the
guarantee (i.e. the expected value of the liability).
If applied properly, the results of the three approaches described above are generally unlikely to
It is noted that S Ltd. has provided the financial guarantee in respect of the loan taken by P Ltd.
without charging any guarantee commission (or fee or premium).The economic substance of the
arrangement is that by not charging P Ltd. the fair value of the guarantee (which S Ltd. may have
charged for issuing a similar guarantee in respect of a loan taken by an unrelated third party), S
Ltd. has effectively made a distribution/repayment of capital to P Ltd. In order to reflect the
substance of the transaction, the debit should be made to an appropriate head under `equity'. It
would not be appropriate to debit the fair value of the guarantee to profit or loss (as if it were a
non-reciprocal distribution to a third party) as it would fail to properly reflect the existence of the
parent-subsidiary relationship that may have caused S Ltd. not to charge the guarantee
Ind AS 115,Revenue from Contracts with Customers is notified on March 31, 2018. The reference as per Ind AS
115 is as follows:
B2.5(a) (ii) the amount initially recognised less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in
accordance with Ind AS 115
commission. Further, S Ltd. may not have issued a similar guarantee for a loan taken by an
unrelated third party without charging a fair compensation.
(ii) As per Ind AS 109, after initial recognition of a financial guarantee contract by the issuer
under the Standard, the issuer shall (unless paragraph 4.2.1(a) or (b) of the standard applies-
which is not the case in the situation under discussion) subsequently measure it at the higher of:
(i) the amount of the loss allowance determined in accordance with Section 5.5 and
(ii) the amount initially recognised (see paragraph 5.1.1) less, when appropriate, the cumulative
amount of income recognised in accordance with the principles of Ind AS 183.
In general, the application of Ind AS 18 would result in the amount of unearned financial
guarantee commission recognised initially being amortised over the period of the guarantee as
income and consequently, the balance of the unearned financial guarantee commission would
decline progressively over the period of the guarantee. However, in addition to amortising the
unearned financial guarantee commission to income, at each reporting date, S Ltd. is required to
compare the unamortised amount of the deferred income with the amount of loss allowance
determined in respect of the guarantee as at that date in accordance with the requirements of
section 5.5 of Ind AS 109. As long as the amount of loss allowance so determined is lower than
the unamortised amount of the deferred income, the liability of S Ltd. in respect of the guarantee
will be represented by the unamortised amount of the financial guarantee commission. However,
if at a reporting date, the amount of the loss allowance determined in accordance with section 5.5
is higher than the unamortised amount of the financial guarantee commission as at that date, the
liability in respect of the financial guarantee will have to be measured at an amount equal to the
amount of the loss allowance. Accordingly, in such a case, S Ltd. will be required to recognise a
further liability equal to the excess of the amount of the loss allowance over the amount of the
unamortised unearned financial guarantee commission.
(iii) Ind AS 109 states that-
"B5.4.1 In applying the effective interest method, an entity identifies fees that are an integral
part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument. The description of fees for
financial services may not be indicative of the nature and substance of the services provided.
Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument are
treated as an adjustment to the effective interest rate, unless the financial instrument is
measured at fair value, with the change in fair value being recognised in profit or loss. In
those cases, the fees are recognised as revenue or expense when the instrument is initially
Ind AS 115 , Revenue from Contracts with Customers is notified on March 31, 2018. The reference as per Ind AS 115 is as
the amount initially recognised (see paragraph 5.1.1) less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in
accordance with the principles of Ind AS 115, Revenue from Contracts with Customers
B5.4.2 Fees that are an integral part of the effective interest rate of a financial instrument
(a) origination fees received by the entity relating to the creation or acquisition of a
financial asset. Such fees may include compensation for activities such as evaluating the
borrower's financial condition, evaluating and recording guarantees, collateral and other
security arrangements, negotiating the terms of the instrument, preparing and processing
documents and closing the transaction. These fees are an integral part of generating an
involvement with the resulting financial instrument.
( c) origination fees paid on issuing financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. These
fees are an integral part of generating an involvement with a financial liability. An entity
distinguishes fees and costs that are an integral part of the effective interest rate for the
financial liability from origination fees and transaction costs relating to the right to provide
services, such as investment management services."
In the present case, financial guarantee provided by S Ltd. is an integral part of the arrangement
for the loan taken by P Ltd. from the bank. As per Ind AS 109, fees associated with evaluating
and recording guarantees that are an integral part of generating an involvement with a financial
asset or a financial liability are taken into account in determining the effective interest rate for
the financial asset/financial liability. In the given case, since the financial guarantee is an
integral part of the loan taken by the P Ltd. and is not separately provided for, so in accordance
with the principles of Ind AS 109, the same is required to be taken into account for calculation of
the effective interest rate and separate accounting of such financial guarantee is not required.
Ind AS 109 provides principles for accounting by the issuer of the guarantee. However, it does
not specifically address the accounting for financial guarantees by the beneficiary. In an arm's
length transaction between unrelated parties, the beneficiary of the financial guarantee would
recognise the guarantee fee or premium paid as an expense.
As already clarified in ITFG Clarification Bulletin 13, Issue 2, an entity needs to exercise
judgment in assessing the substance of the transaction taking into consideration relevant facts
and circumstances, for example, whether any benefits are being otherwise obtained for providing
guarantee. Based on such an assessment, an appropriate accounting treatment based on the
principles of Ind AS should be followed.
It may be noted that in the Issue 2 of ITFG Clarification Bulletin 13, the guarantee was given by
the director. The principle of attribution acquires significance in a parent subsidiary
relationship and in the given case the beneficiary should recognise the guarantee. In the case of a
guarantee provided by a subsidiary in respect of the liability of a parent, even if no consideration
is received by the subsidiary, it should recognise a liability in its separate financial statements for
the fair value of the guarantee. Even if no payments from the parent to the subsidiary are agreed
for such a guarantee, then the subsidiary has provided the guarantee in its capacity as a investee
and should account for the issuance of the guarantee as a distribution of dividend/repayment of
capital to the parent. Consequentially, the transaction should also be recognised by the holder of
Based on the above, in the given case, P Ltd. has not paid any guarantee commission to S Ltd.
As discussed earlier in the context of accounting for the financial guarantee by S Ltd. in terms of
economic substance, the provision of guarantee by S Ltd. without charging guarantee
commission is analogous to a distribution/ repayment of capital by S Ltd. to P Ltd. To reflect this
substance, P Ltd. should credit the fair value of the guarantee to its investment in S Ltd. and
debit the same to the carrying amount of the loan (which would have the effect of such fair value
being included in determination of effective interest rate on the loan).
The above transaction also needs to be evaluated for disclosure under paragraph 18 of Ind AS 24,
Related Party Disclosures,
As per the facts of the case, S Ltd. is in losses and has not paid any dividend to P Ltd. in the past.
These limited facts do not per se impact the accounting treatment of financial guarantee given by
Issue 2: How should an entity account for the interest and penalties related to income taxes,
in accordance with the principles of Ind AS?Is there any conflict between the treatment as
per Ind AS vis-a-vis IFRS?
Response: Paragraph 9.7.1 of `Guidance Note on Division II- Ind AS Schedule III to the
Companies Act, 2013' issued by the ICAI states as follows:
`Any interest on shortfall in payment of advance income-tax is in the nature of finance cost and
hence should not be clubbed with the Current tax. The same should be classified as Interest
expense under finance costs. However, such amount should be separately disclosed.
Any penalties levied under Income tax laws should not be classified as Current tax. Penalties
which are compensatory in nature should be treated as interest and disclosed in the manner
explained above. Other tax penalties should be classified under `Other Expenses'.'
The above recommendations of the Guidance Note are based on the difference between the
nature of current tax on the one hand and that of interest or penalties levied on an entity under
the income-tax law on the other. As per Ind AS 12, "current tax is the amount of income taxes
payable (recoverable) in respect of the taxable profit (tax loss) for a period." Thus, an entity's
obligation for current tax arises because it earns taxable profit during a period. An entity's
obligation for interest or penalties, on the other hand, arises because of its failure to comply with
one or more of the requirements of income-tax law (e.g. failure to deposit income-tax). Thus,
obligations for current tax and those for interest or penalties arise due to reasons that are
fundamentally different in nature. Paragraph 29 of Ind AS 1, Presentation of Financial
Statements, requires, inter alia, that "an entity shall present separately items of a dissimilar
nature or function unless they are immaterial except when required by law." It is with a view to
properly reflect the difference in the nature of current tax and interest/penalties imposed under
income-tax law that the Guidance Note requires interest or penalties to be not clubbed with
current tax and to treat penalties that are compensatory in nature and interest as part of finance
cost and to treat other penalties as part of other expenses.
It may also be mentioned where an entity is in compliance of all of the applicable requirements
of income-tax law, it incurs no obligation to pay any interest or penalties, regardless of the
amount of its taxable profit for the period. The amount of the entity's taxable profit for a period,
on the other hand, generally has a direct correlation with the amount of its current tax obligation
for the period. However, even if the amount of interest or penalties for non-compliance with
requirements of applicable income-tax law in a particular jurisdiction were linked directly to the
amount of taxable profit, the differences in nature of current tax and interest/penalties would still
warrant that current tax and interest/penalties not be clubbed together. In other words, similarity
in a particular jurisdiction in the bases of computation of amount of current tax and
interest/penalties for non-compliance is not a sufficient ground for clubbing these items, which
are different in terms of their nature.
It is also pertinent to mention that as per a recent IFRIC4 agenda decision (in the meeting held on
12 September 2017)5; entities do not have an accounting policy choice between applying IAS 12
and applying IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets to interest and
penalties. Instead, if an entity considers a particular amount payable or receivable for interest and
penalties to be an income tax, then the entity applies IAS 12 to that amount. If an entity does not
apply IAS 12 to a particular amount payable or receivable for interest and penalties, it applies
IAS 37 to that amount. An entity discloses its judgement in this respect applying paragraph 122
of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, if it is part of the entity's judgements that had the
most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements.
It is noted that as per the IFRIC agenda decision, there might be situations where an amount
payable (or receivable) for interest or penalties may be in the nature of income-taxes and thus
will be within the scope of IAS 12. In considering whether an amount of interest or a penalty is
in the scope of IAS 12, an entity considers whether the interest or penalty is a tax and whether
that tax is based on taxable profits.
The IFRS Interpretations Committee (Interpretations Committee) is the interpretative body of the International Accounting
Standards Board (Board). The Interpretations Committee works with the Board in supporting the application of IFRS Standards.
In some situations it might be difficult to identify whether an amount payable to (or receivable
from) a tax authority includes interest or penalties. For example, this might be the case when the
total amount payable to a tax authority is negotiated as a single amount and the tax authority
often issues a single demand for unpaid taxes, which might also include interest and penalties. In
such situations, since it may not be possible to segregate interest and penalty component, entire
amount would qualify within meaning of IAS 12.
It is noted that the applicability of IFRSs is across a large number of jurisdictions, each with its
own income-tax law, therefore, an entity should determine whether a particular amount payable
or receivable for interest and penalties is in the scope of IAS 12 (or Ind AS 12) considering the
tax laws applicable in its individual jurisdiction. For this purpose, an entity should consider
whether tax laws in the jurisdiction and other facts and circumstances indicate that this amount is
based on a taxable profit i.e. a `net' amount. For example, in India, interest and penalty
payable under section 234A/B/C will not qualify as income-taxes within the meaning of IAS 12
(or Ind AS 12). Thus, the related amount will be recognised as interest (similar to the approach
under the guidance note).Other interest and penalties under the Indian income tax act are also
generally not expected to qualify as income-taxes.
Issue 3: DG Ltd. had taken foreign letter of credit from a scheduled bank in financial year
2011-12 at a rate linked to LIBOR (which was 4.50% at that time). DG Ltd. was unable to
meet its repayment obligation on the due date and the bank crystallised the liability into
INR. As the loan was not serviced by DG Ltd. it became NPA for the bank. Thereafter, the
bank assigned the loan to an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC). The loan which was
taken over by ARC was subsequently negotiated between the ARC and DG Ltd. to arrive
at a settlement as part of the above assignment.
The above arrangement was agreed upon between the parties in the form of hair cut by the
ARC for some balance of the loan, partial settlement of the loan by issue of fully paid up
equity shares at traded market price and the balance loan amount to be paid in
installments over 7 years. The revised interest agreed upon by the ARC is linked to the
marginal cost of funds based lending rate (MCLR) and with certain additional discount of
some basis points which is lesser than the normal bank funding rates. This arrangement
between the parties was entered into post implementation date of Ind AS for the Company.
Whether the above is a modification of debt from the perspective of DG Ltd. If so, how
such modification will be accounted for?
Response: In the given case, the above arrangement between ARC and DG Ltd. towards the
outstanding loan has been entered during the year when Ind AS is applicable to DG Ltd. The
loan taken by DG Ltd. is a `financial liability' as defined in Ind AS 32. The timing as well as the
manner of recognition of effects of the above arrangement between ARC and DG Ltd. will be
governed by Ind AS 109, Financial Instruments.
The response in the following paragraphs is based on the assumption that the carrying amount of
the loan as on to the date of transition to Ind AS and the original effective interest rate referred to
in paragraph B3.3.6 of Ind AS 109 have been correctly determined by the entity in accordance
with the requirements of Ind AS 109, read with Ind AS 101, First-time Adoption of Indian
Paragraphs 3.3.1 3.3.3 of Ind AS 109 provide the following guidance in this regard:
"3.3.1 An entity shall remove a financial liability (or a part of a financial liability) from its
balance sheet when, and only when, it is extinguished--ie when the obligation specified
in the contract is discharged or cancelled or expires.
3.3.2 An exchange between an existing borrower and lender of debt instruments with
substantially different terms shall be accounted for as an extinguishment of the original
financial liability and the recognition of a new financial liability. Similarly, a substantial
modification of the terms of an existing financial liability or a part of it (whether or not
attributable to the financial difficulty of the debtor) shall be accounted for as an
extinguishment of the original financial liability and the recognition of a new financial
3.3.3 The difference between the carrying amount of a financial liability (or part of a financial
liability) extinguished or transferred to another party and the consideration paid,
including any non-cash assets transferred or liabilities assumed, shall be recognised in
profit or loss."
Paragraphs B3.3.1 of Ind AS 109 Appendix B states as under:
B3.3.1 A financial liability (or part of it) is extinguished when the debtor either:
(a) discharges the liability (or part of it) by paying the creditor, normally with cash, other
financial assets, goods or services; or
(b) is legally released from primary responsibility for the liability (or part of it) either by
process of law or by the creditor. (If the debtor has given a guarantee this condition
may still be met.)
[It is assumed in the following discussion that no costs or fees have been incurred in connection
with modification of the terms of the loan.]
As per paragraphs 3.3.1 and B3.3.1, DG Ltd. is required to assess that whether change of the
lender (assignment of loan) from bank to the ARC is a legal release from the primary liability to
the bank. If it is so concluded, then the entire amount of the existing loan will be derecognised
and new arrangement with ARC shall be accounted for as a new loan and the difference shall be
recognised in profit or loss.
If it is concluded that change of the lender (assignment of loan) does not result in legal release
from primary liability to the bank then DG Ltd. needs to consider the requirements of paragraph
3.3.2 of Ind AS 109. As per paragraph 3.3.2, a substantial modification of the terms of an
existing financial liability or a part of it (whether or not attributable to the financial difficulty of
the debtor) is accounted for as an extinguishment of the original financial liability (or part of the
financial liability) and the recognition of a new financial liability. For determining whether a
modification of the terms of an existing financial liability (or a part of it) is substantial,
paragraph B3.3.6 of Ind AS 109 Appendix B lays down a quantitative test. As per paragraph
B3.3.6, the terms are substantially different if the discounted present value of the cash flows
under the new terms, including any fees paid net of any fees received and discounted using the
original effective interest rate, is at least 10 per cent different from the discounted present value
of the remaining cash flows of the original financial liability.
In case a modification of the terms of a financial liability fails to meet the 10% quantitative
threshold laid down in paragraph B3.3.6, an issue arises whether it can be concluded without
carrying any further analysis that the modification is not substantial. While Ind AS 109 does not
provide any specific guidance on this issue, the quantitative test alone may not be sufficient to
reach the above conclusion in all cases. This is because some or all of modification to the terms
of a financial liability may be of such nature that their effect is not captured by the quantitative
Determining whether the terms are substantially different, from a qualitative perspective, is
judgemental and will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Where a
modification of the terms of a financial liability does not meet the quantitative threshold of 10%,
a qualitative analysis may be required to be carried out to determine whether modifications of the
terms that are not captured by the quantitative analysis are substantial. There may be situations
where the modification of the debt is so fundamental that derecognition is appropriate whether or
not the 10% test is satisfied.
It is noted that as per the terms of settlement with ARC, DG Ltd. was required to settle a part of
the loan immediately by way of issue of its own equity shares at fair value. The partial settlement
of the existing loan by issuing equity will be accounted for in accordance with Appendix D of
Ind AS 109, Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments and paragraph 3.3.4 of
Ind AS 109.
The balance should be tested by DG Ltd. for de-recognition i.e. whether there is a substantial
modification of the terms of an existing financial liability or a part of it. In the present case, as
per the facts of the case, the modifications relate to terms that are captured by the quantitative
test (viz.the `haircut', rescheduling of repayment, and change in interest rate); there are no
additional factors requiring a qualitative analysis in the given case. Hence, if the quantitative
threshold of 10% is met, the modification should be considered to be substantial (and vice versa).
If the modification of balance loan is considered to be substantial, then DG Ltd. should de-
recognises the balance loan and recognises the new modified loan and any difference between
the carrying amount of the original balance loan and new modified loan is recognised in profit or
Issue 4: Whether investments made by an entity in units of money-market mutual funds
(i.e., those investing in money-market instruments such as treasury bills, certificates of
deposit and commercial paper) that are traded in an active market or are puttable by the
holder to the fund at net asset value (NAV) at any time can be classified as cash equivalents
as per Ind AS?
Response: Paragraph 6 of Ind AS7, Statement of Cash Flows, defines the term "cash
equivalents" as follows:
Cash equivalents are short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known
amounts of cash and which are subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value.
Further paragraph 7 of Ind AS 7, inter-alia states that, "Cash equivalents are held for the purpose
of meeting short-term cash commitments rather than for investment or other purposes. For an
investment to qualify as a cash equivalent it must be readily convertible to a known amount of
cash and be subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value."
As per the above, Ind AS 7 prescribes the following three cumulative conditions to be met for an
investment to be classified as a `cash equivalent' under the standard:
(a) The investment must be for meeting short-term cash commitments.
(b) It must be highly liquid, i.e. readily convertible to cash.
(c) The amount that would be realised from the investment must be known, with no more
than an insignificant risk of change in value of the investment.
The investment must be for meeting short-term cash commitments
Whether an investment is for meeting short-term cash commitments or not is essentially a matter
of management intent which can generally be inferred from such documentary sources as
investment policy, investment manuals, minutes of relevant committee meetings, etc. and can be
corroborated by the actual experience of buying and selling those investments. However, it is to
be noted that such investments are to be held only as a means of settling liabilities, and not as an
investment or for any other purposes. Therefore, whether this condition is met or not requires an
assessment of the particular facts and circumstances of a case.
Investment must be highly liquid, i.e. readily convertible to cash.
Units of a money market mutual fund that are traded in an active market or that can be put back
by the holder at any time to the fund at their net asset value may meet the condition of the
investment being highly liquid.
The amount that would be realised from the investment must be known, with no more than an
insignificant risk of change in value of the investment.
It is pertinent to note that the amount of cash that will be received must be known at the time of
the initial investment. Accordingly, the investments in units of money market funds cannot be
considered cash equivalents simply because they can be converted to cash at any time at the then
market price in an active market. Further, the entity would have to satisfy itself that the
investment is subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value for it to be classified as a cash
equivalent. Hence, the purpose of holding the instrument and the satisfaction of the criteria
should both be clear from its terms and conditions.
Accordingly, it requires careful assessment of each of the investments of the entity considering
the definition given under Ind AS 7 as well as the purpose of holding the investments. An entity
should satisfy itself and able to demonstrate that the investment is subject to an insignificant risk
of change in value for it to be classified as a cash equivalent.
As a general proposition, the third condition, viz. that the investment must be convertible into a
known amount of cash and the risk of change in the value of the investment should not be more
than insignificant is usually not expected to be met by units of a money-market (or other) mutual
fund which can be put back by the holder to the fund at any time for redemption at net asset
value (or can be sold in an active market). It is well-known that even though the money market
instruments have a relatively short life, their value keeps changing primarily due to changes in
interest rates. Consequently, the amount of cash that will be received from redemption or sale of
the units may not be known at the time of the initial investment and the value of such units may
be subject to a more than insignificant risk of change during the period of their holding.
However, there may be cases wherein this condition is met e.g. where such units are acquired
only for a very brief period before the end of tenure of a mutual fund and the maturity amounts
of the fund's investments are pre-determined and known in such a case, it might be possible to
argue that the redemption amount of the units is known and subject only to an insignificant
change in value.
Issue 5: Company A is a subsidiary of Company B. Both are under Phase II of Ind AS
implementation. During the year 2016-17, Company B demerged one of its businesses
under the order of the High Court and sold the same to Company A. Under IGAAP, the
assets and liabilities of the demerged business of Company B was taken by Company A at
their fair value and issued its shares as consideration (calculated on the basis of the fair
value of the business of Company B) accordingly. Under Ind AS 103, Business
Combinations, acquisition of a business within the companies under Common Control has
to be accounted by the acquirer at book value as appearing in the books of the acquiree. In
facts of case the acquisition of business by subsidiary (Company A) from parent (Company
B) qualifies as common control business combination within Appendix C of Ind AS 103.
Whether Company A is required to apply Ind AS 103 on the acquisition of the business
from Company B?
Response: It is noted that the demerger (of one of the businesses of Company B into Company
A) occurred during the financial year 2016-17. It is further noted that in their financial statements
for the financial year 2016-17, the transferee company (Company A or the company) as well as
the transferor company (Company B) were not required to, and did not apply, Indian Accounting
Standards (Ind ASs) notified under the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015.
The Accounting Standards notified under the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 do
not specifically deal with accounting for demerger. It has been mentioned in the query that
"under IGAAP, the assets and liabilities of the demerged business of Company B were taken by
Company A at their fair value and Company A issued its shares as consideration (calculated on
the basis of the fair value of the business of Company B) accordingly." We interpret this to mean
that in its financial statements for the year 2016-17, Company A accounted for the assets and
liabilities acquired under the scheme of demerger at their respective fair values as at the date of
It is noted that in the case of Company A, the first Ind AS financial statements would be those
for the financial year 2017-18. In those financial statements, the comparative amounts to be
presented as per Ind ASs would be those for the year 2016-17. It is also noted that the demerger
occurred during the financial year 2016-17, i.e., after the `date of transition to Ind ASs' by
Company A (i.e., April 1, 2016) within the meaning of the said term under Ind AS 101, First-
time Adoption of Indian Accounting Standards.
Scenario A: Accounting treatment of demerger not prescribed in the court-approved
An entity can choose not to restate any business combination that occurred prior to its transition
to Ind AS, and it can apply Ind AS 103 prospectively from the date of transition. In case the
court-approved scheme of demerger did not prescribe the accounting treatment for the demerger
in the books of Company A, the demerger is then no different from any other transaction
occurring on or after the date of transition to Ind ASs. A transaction occurring on or after the
date of transition to Ind ASs is required to be accounted for as per relevant requirements under
Ind ASs, irrespective of how it was accounted for under previous GAAP. In case the accounting
treatment of a transaction (occurring on or after the date of transition to Ind ASs) under the
previous GAAP was different from the treatment thereof required under Ind ASs, the
comparative amounts to be presented in the first Ind AS financial statements also need to be
restated as to conform to accounting required under Ind ASs.
As the demerger occurred after the date of Company A's transition to Ind ASs, it should be
accounted for as per the relevant requirements of Ind ASs. As per the query, from the perspective
of Company A, the demerger qualifies as a common control business combination within the
meaning of this term under Appendix C of Ind AS 103. Accordingly, in the financial statements
of Company A for the comparative year 2016-17, the demerger would need to be accounted for
as per the `pooling of interest method' laid down in Appendix C of Ind AS 103. This would
involve, inter alia, recognition of assets and liabilities of the acquired business at their respective
book values as appearing in the books of Company B. This implies that the figures at which the
assets and liabilities of the demerged business were recognised by Company A in its financial
statements for the year 2016-17 prepared as per previous GAAP demerger would need to be
restated as per the `pooling of interests method' when presenting the comparative amounts in the
Ind AS financial statements of Company A for the financial year 2017-18. The financial
information in the financial statements in respect of prior periods should be restated as if the
business combination had occurred from the beginning of the preceding period (1 April 2016) in
the financial statements, irrespective of the actual date of the combination. This is on the basis of
assumption that the acquirer and acquiree both were under common control on 1 April 2016.
Scenario B: Accounting treatment of demerger prescribed in the court-approved scheme
An announcement of the Council of the institute of Chartered Accountants of India, "Disclosures
in cases where a Court/Tribunal makes an order sanctioning an accounting treatment which
is different from that prescribed by an Accounting Standard6, states that-
"............... if an item in the financial statements of a Company is treated differently pursuant
to an Order made by the Court/Tribunal, as compared to the treatment required by an Accounting
Standard, following disclosures should be made in the financial statements of the year in which
different treatment has been given:
1. A description of the accounting treatment made along with the reason that the same has
been adopted because of the Court/ Tribunal Order.
2. Description of the difference between the accounting treatment prescribed in the
Accounting Standard and that followed by the Company.
3. The financial impact, if any, arising due to such a difference.
Thus, as per the above announcement, accounting treatment of a transaction as required under an
order of a court or tribunal (or other similar authority) overrides the accounting treatment that
would otherwise be required to be followed in respect of the transaction and it is mandatory for
the company concerned to follow the treatment as per the order of the court/tribunal.
Published in `The Chartered Accountant', December 2004 (pp. 825)
In the context of the above requirement, if the court-approved scheme of demerger prescribed the
accounting treatment for the demerger in the books of Company A (e.g., recognition of assets
and liabilities acquired at their respective fair values as at the date of demerger) then Company A
will follow the treatment prescribed in the scheme in its financial statements for the year 2016-17
and if the effect of such treatment is to be carried over in subsequent years also then the same
treatment of court approved scheme will be followed in the subsequent years subject to
compliance of auditing standards. It is to be noted that the Company A is required to follow the
accounting requirements of Ind AS which are not in conflict with provisions of the court scheme.
Issue 6: A Ltd. has entered into a long term lease of 99 years for a land in a textile park. As
per the lease agreement, A Ltd.is required to pay nominal annual rent at the rate of Re. 1/
sq.mtr. without any upfront payment. Further A Ltd. has made a payment of a material
amount (say 150 crores) as the lumpsum payment towards using the common
infrastructure facilities of the park for the period of 99 years.
Whether the above lease transactionshould be classified as an operating lease or finance
lease as per Ind AS, provided the following terms:
No initial amount has been paid towards such lease.
A Ltd. has no option to purchase the land at a price that is sufficiently lower than
fair value at the date option is exercisable.
The renewal of the lease is based on the mutual acceptance at the end of lease term.
Lessor has not agreed to renew lease on expiry of lease term
Further, whether the infrastructure usage rights should be classified under intangible
assets or should be considered as part of land lease?
Response: It is noted that as per the terms of agreement between A Ltd and the owner of the
textile park, A Ltd. is required to pay annual lease rent at the rate of Re. 1/ sq.mtr. during the
entire lease term of 99 years. Additionally, A Ltd. has made a large lump sum payment upfront
which is stated to be towards using the common infrastructure facilities of the park for the said
period of 99 years. In the given case the stated lease rental for land is no more than nominal, the
lump sum amount paid upfront also includes an element towards land lease rentals,
notwithstanding that the agreement states that the lump sum payment is (only) towards use of
common infrastructure facilities of the park.
The entity is required to evaluate whether the lease of land is a finance lease or an operating
lease based on the definitions of `finance lease' and `operating lease' and indicators for
classification of lease given under Ind AS 17, Leases. Reference may also be made in this regard
to ITFG Clarification Bulletin 7 (Issue 5) which emphasises that the classification of a lease
under Ind AS 17 requires exercise of judgement in the context of facts and circumstances of each
The agreement provides A Ltd. the right of use of both land and common infrastructure facilities
even though the right of use of land is exclusive whereas the right of use of common
infrastructure facilities is non-exclusive. It may also be argued that common infrastructure
facilities such as access roads are essential for A Ltd to be able to utilise its rights in relation to
land. Accordingly, while applying Ind AS 17, the right of use of both land and common
infrastructure facilities may be viewed as a single set of rights unless the terms of the agreement
such as tenure, renewal option, etc. in respect of the two are different (which does not seem to be
the case). If the two rights are accounted for as a single item, the relevant line item in the
balance sheet may bring out clearly that it relates to right of use of both land and common
infrastructure facilities. If on the other hand the two rights are accounted for separately (because
of differences in the terms and underlying benefits relating to the two), accounting for each right
should be based on the particular terms and underlying benefits associated with it.
It also needs to be assessed that whether the textile park is providing services in the form of
common infrastructure facilities. As per Ind AS 17, costs for services are excluded from
minimum lease rentals. Where it is concluded that textile part is providing services for tenure of
the land then in such case the upfront payment has to be split between minimum lease payment
towards lease of land and prepayment for future services. The amount allocated to MLPs towards
lease of land has to be considered for the purpose of determining classification of lease between
operating or finance lease.
Issue 7: S Ltd. has availed loan in financial year 2012 (no concession in rate of interest is
given by bank by virtue of guarantee from parent) from banks. The said loan has been
guaranteed by its Parent P Ltd). Parent is in phase -2 of implementation of Ind AS where
transition date is 1st April 2016. S Ltd. is 61.5% subsidiary of P Ltd. Initial estimate/tenure
of the borrowing was 10 years. However, the S Ltd. repaid the whole loan amount within
the period of 6 years in financial year2018. On transition date, P Ltd. recognised the
financial liability obligation in its separate financial statements and presented resultant
`Investment in subsidiary' to that extent.
What shall be the accounting treatment of the `financial guarantee' provided by the P Ltd.
in respect of loan/borrowing availed by S Ltd., in case the underlying loan is repaid earlier
than estimated initially?
Response: As per the requirements of Ind AS 109 Financial Instruments, on the date of
transition, P Ltd. recognised the `Financial guarantee obligation' in its separate financial
statement with the corresponding impact in the `Investment in subsidiary' on initial recognition
after considering the terms of the guarantee.
With regard to subsequent measurement, as stated in Issue 1, financial guarantee contract is
subsequently measured at the higher of: (i) the amount of the loss allowance and (ii) the amount
initially recognised less, when appropriate, the cumulative amount of income recognised in
accordance with the principles of Ind AS 187.
As per the facts in the given case, the parent company initially recognised the financial guarantee
obligation at its fair value, based on the estimated term of the loan/borrowing as 10 years but, S
Ltd. repaid the entire amount of loan after the expiry of 6 years.
There is a change in the expected tenure in terms of contractual life which was earlier estimated
for 10 years while the actual tenure came out to be 6 year. With regard to change in estimate with
respect to the tenure of the instrument, guidance given under Ind AS 8, Accounting Policies,
Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors may be considered.
Paragraph 36 and 37 of Ind AS 8 states as follows:
"36 The effect of change in an accounting estimate, other than a change to which paragraph 37
applies, shall be recognised prospectively by including it in profit or loss in:
(a)the period of the change, if the change affects that period only; or
(b)the period of the change and future periods, if the change affects both.
37 To the extent that a change in an accounting estimate gives rise to changes in assets and
liabilities, or relates to an item of equity, it shall be recognised by adjusting the carrying
amount of the related asset, liability or equity item in the period of the change."
In accordance with the above, it may be noted that where change in the accounting estimate
gives rise to changes in assets, liabilities and equity, then the same shall be adjusted in the
carrying amount of the related asset, liability or equity item in the period of the change. As per
the facts mentioned above, there is change in the estimate of expected life of the instrument (i.e.
loan is repaid in 6 year rather than repaying it after 10 years) and since no obligation exists for
parent in respect of the financial guarantee provided by the parent, the parent may reverse the
amount of obligation.
The attribution debited to investment upon providing guarantee is in substance the consideration
that the parent would have collected for providing similar guarantee to an unrelated third party.
In case of prepayment of loan by an unrelated third party, the parent would generally not have
refunded the consideration and would have recognised the entire unrecognised commission in
profit & loss. Similar approach should be followed for guarantee given to the subsidiary.
Accordingly, in the given case, on initial recognition P Ltd. recognised a financial guarantee
obligation of Rs. 1000. As required by paragraph 4.2.1(c)(ii) of Ind AS 109, this amount initially
Ind AS 115,Revenue from Contracts with Customers is notified on March 31, 2018 and superseded Ind AS 11 and
Ind AS 18.
recognised is amortised as income in each accounting period. By the end of the year 6, Rs.400 is
standing as carrying value of financial guarantee in the financial statement of P Ltd. But since S
Ltd. has repaid the loan, there is no obligation existing for P Ltd. Accordingly, P Ltd. should
reverse the balance outstanding as guarantee obligation with corresponding recognition of
revenue of Rs. 400 in profit and loss account.