Detailed Analysis of Differences Between Ind AS and IFRS

Detailed Analysis of Differences Between Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)

> Introduction

The global adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) aims to create a uniform accounting language that enhances comparability and transparency across international borders. However, countries often modify IFRS to align with their local economic, legal, and regulatory environments. In India, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs introduced the Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS), which converge with IFRS but include specific modifications. This detailed analysis explores the significant differences between Ind AS and IFRS, the reasons behind these differences, and their implications on financial reporting in India.

> Historical Context and Evolution

India’s move towards Ind AS began in 2007 to bring its accounting standards in line with global practices. The adoption process involved a phased approach to allow companies to transition smoothly. Full convergence with IFRS was deemed impractical due to India’s unique economic and regulatory environment, resulting in various carve-outs (modifications) and carve-ins (additional guidance) within Ind AS.

> Key Differences and Rationale

• Presentation of Financial Statements (Ind AS 1 vs IAS 1)

– Single vs. Two-Statement Approach: IAS 1 allows entities to choose between presenting a single statement of profit and loss and other comprehensive income or two separate statements. Ind AS 1 mandates a single statement approach, simplifying the presentation and ensuring consistency among Indian entities. This approach also aligns with the Indian regulatory framework, which emphasizes simplicity and clarity in financial reporting.

– Terminology and Periodicity: IAS 1 permits flexibility in the titles of financial statements and allows a reporting period of 52 weeks. Ind AS 1 standardizes the terminology and restricts the periodicity to a financial year (April to March), reflecting the fiscal practices in India and ensuring uniformity across financial reports.

– Classification of Expenses: IAS 1 permits classification based on either nature or function of expenses. Ind AS 1 requires classification by nature, aligning with the prevalent practice in India and providing clearer insights into the types of expenses incurred by entities.

• Inventories (Ind AS 2 vs IAS 2)

– Cost Formulas: While both standards allow for First-In, First-Out (FIFO) and weighted average cost formulas, IAS 2 permits the use of the Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) method, which is prohibited under Ind AS 2. This prohibition aligns with the global trend moving away from LIFO due to its potential to distort financial results and provide less relevant information to users of financial statements.

• Events After the Reporting Period (Ind AS 10 vs IAS 10)

– Dividends: IAS 10 requires dividends declared after the reporting period to be disclosed but not recognized as a liability. Ind AS 10, however, mandates recognition of such dividends as a liability, reflecting the legal obligation under Indian corporate law once the dividend is declared, even if it occurs after the reporting period.

• Construction Contracts (Ind AS 11 vs IAS 11)

– Revenue Recognition: Both standards require revenue recognition based on the stage of completion method. However, Ind AS 11 incorporates additional guidance specific to the Indian context, addressing unique contractual practices prevalent in India. This additional guidance ensures that revenue recognition aligns with the actual progress and economic substance of construction activities in India.

• Business Combinations (Ind AS 103 vs IFRS 3)

– Bargain Purchase Gain: IFRS 3 requires bargain purchase gains to be recognized in profit or loss. Ind AS 103 mandates recognition in other comprehensive income and accumulation in equity as a capital reserve unless there is no clear evidence of the reason for the bargain purchase. This treatment is intended to avoid inflating profits and to reflect such gains more conservatively.

– Common Control Transactions: IFRS 3 excludes common control transactions from its scope. Ind AS 103 provides specific guidance on accounting for such transactions, reflecting common business practices in India where family-owned businesses and restructuring under common control are prevalent. This guidance ensures that the accounting treatment of such transactions reflects their economic substance and provides meaningful information to users.

• Financial Instruments (Ind AS 109 vs IFRS 9)

– Hedge Accounting: Both standards are largely aligned in their principles for hedge accounting. However, Ind AS 109 includes additional guidance to address the unique economic conditions and risk management practices in India. This additional guidance ensures that entities in India can effectively apply hedge accounting principles that reflect their risk management strategies.

– Expected Credit Loss Model: While both standards adopt the expected credit loss model, Ind AS 109 provides specific adjustments to cater to the credit risk environment in India. These adjustments ensure that the measurement of credit losses reflects the realities of the Indian credit market and provides more relevant information to users of financial statements.

• Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Ind AS 115 vs IFRS 15)

– Excise Duty: Ind AS 115 requires the separate presentation of excise duty in the statement of profit and loss, reflecting the statutory requirements in India. This presentation ensures transparency and allows users to understand the impact of excise duty on an entity’s financial performance.

– Right of Return: Ind AS 115 includes specific guidance on accounting for transfers of control of a product with an unconditional right of return, addressing common commercial practices in India. This guidance ensures that revenue recognition reflects the terms of the transaction and provides meaningful information about the risks and rewards associated with the sale.

• Leases (Ind AS 116 vs IFRS 16)

– Lease Classification: Both standards align closely in their principles for lease accounting. However, Ind AS 116 includes additional guidance on lease classification and accounting, tailored to the regulatory framework and leasing practices in India. This guidance ensures that the accounting treatment of leases reflects the economic substance of leasing transactions in India.

• Ind AS 38, Intangible Assets

– Amortization of Intangible Assets: Ind AS 38 allows revenue-based amortization for intangible assets arising from service concession arrangements related to toll roads, providing relief to entities following the practice allowed under the Companies Act, 2013. This is a divergence from IFRS 38, which restricts revenue-based amortization to specific circumstances. This treatment reflects the economic reality of toll road projects in India, where revenue generation is closely linked to the usage of the asset.

• Ind AS 21, The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates

– Functional Currency: Ind AS 21 provides additional guidance on determining the functional currency, addressing the complexities faced by Indian entities operating in multiple currencies. This guidance ensures that the financial statements reflect the economic substance of the entity’s operations and provide meaningful information to users.

> Reasons for Differences

The differences between Ind AS and IFRS arise primarily due to the following reasons:

1. Economic Environment: India’s economic conditions, such as inflation rates, credit risk environment, and market practices, necessitate specific adjustments to ensure the relevance and reliability of financial reporting. For example, the expected credit loss model in Ind AS 109 is tailored to reflect the credit risk environment in India, ensuring that the measurement of credit losses is relevant and reliable.

2. Legal and Regulatory Framework: The legal requirements under the Companies Act, tax laws, and other regulations influence certain accounting treatments under Ind AS. For instance, the requirement to recognize dividends declared after the reporting period as a liability under Ind AS 10 reflects the legal obligation under Indian corporate law.

3. Business Practices: Common business practices in India, such as common control transactions and specific industry practices, require tailored guidance under Ind AS. For example, the guidance on common control transactions in Ind AS 103 reflects the prevalence of family-owned businesses and restructuring under common control in India.

4. User Needs: The information needs of users of financial statements in India, including investors, regulators, and other stakeholders, drive certain disclosures and accounting treatments under Ind AS. For instance, the separate presentation of excise duty in Ind AS 115 reflects the statutory requirements in India and provides transparency to users about the impact of excise duty on an entity’s financial performance.

> Implications of Differences

The differences between Ind AS and IFRS have several implications for entities and stakeholders in India:

1. Comparability: While Ind AS aims to converge with IFRS, the differences can affect the comparability of financial statements of Indian entities with their global counterparts. Stakeholders need to be aware of these differences to make informed decisions.

2. Compliance and Reporting: Entities need to invest in training and systems to comply with Ind AS requirements, especially where they differ from IFRS. This can involve additional costs and complexities in financial reporting.

3. Investor Confidence: Aligning with global standards through Ind AS enhances investor confidence in the financial statements of Indian entities. However, stakeholders must understand the specific adjustments and carve-outs to accurately interpret the financial information.

4. Regulatory Oversight: Regulators in India need to ensure that the adoption of Ind AS meets the objective of providing high-quality financial reporting while addressing the specific needs of the Indian context.

> Carve-Outs and Carve-Ins: Specific Examples

The implementation of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) involves several carve-outs (modifications) and carve-ins (additional guidance) from International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to tailor the standards to India’s specific economic, legal, and regulatory context. This section explores specific examples of these carve-outs and carve-ins, providing detailed insights into their rationale and implications.

> Carve-Outs

Carve-outs refer to deviations from IFRS that are incorporated into Ind AS to address unique Indian conditions. These modifications are necessary to ensure the standards are practical and relevant for Indian entities.

Example 1: Amortization of Intangible Assets (Ind AS 38 vs IAS 38)

IFRS Requirement:

IAS 38 restricts the use of revenue-based amortization methods for intangible assets. The standard generally requires the use of a straight-line method unless the intangible asset’s consumption pattern clearly supports another method.

Ind AS Modification:

Ind AS 38 allows revenue-based amortization for intangible assets arising from service concession arrangements, particularly in the context of toll roads. This is a significant deviation from IAS 38.

Rationale:

This carve-out addresses the specific economic reality of toll road projects in India, where the revenue generation from tolls directly correlates with the usage of the asset. By allowing revenue-based amortization, Ind AS 38 ensures that the amortization expense matches the economic benefits derived from the asset, providing a more accurate reflection of financial performance.

Implications:

This approach aligns amortization expenses with revenue, thereby providing more relevant information to users of financial statements. It also ensures compliance with local regulatory frameworks, such as the Companies Act, 2013.

Example 2: Functional Currency (Ind AS 21 vs IAS 21)

IFRS Requirement:

IAS 21 provides principles for determining an entity’s functional currency, focusing on

the primary economic environment in which the entity operates.

Ind AS Modification:

Ind AS 21 includes additional guidance on determining the functional currency, taking into account the complexities faced by Indian entities operating in multiple currencies. This guidance provides detailed criteria to help entities in making this determination.

Rationale:

The additional guidance in Ind AS 21 caters to the operational realities of Indian businesses, which often deal with significant foreign exchange fluctuations and multiple currency operations. This helps in accurately identifying the functional currency that most faithfully represents the economic effects of the underlying transactions, events, and conditions.

Implications:

This carve-out ensures that financial statements reflect the economic substance of the entity’s operations, providing more relevant and reliable information to users. It also reduces the ambiguity and potential inconsistencies in determining the functional currency.

• Carve-Ins

Carve-ins involve additional guidance or modifications that are not present in IFRS but are incorporated into Ind AS to address specific needs of Indian stakeholders.

Example 1: Dividends (Ind AS 10 vs IAS 10)

IFRS Requirement:

IAS 10 requires dividends declared after the reporting period to be disclosed but not

recognized as a liability at the reporting date.

Ind AS Addition:

Ind AS 10 mandates the recognition of dividends declared after the reporting period as a liability, reflecting the legal obligation under Indian corporate law once the dividend is declared.

Rationale:

In India, once dividends are declared, they become a legal obligation of the company under corporate law. Recognizing them as a liability at the reporting date ensures that the financial statements reflect this obligation accurately, providing a true and fair view of the company’s financial position.

Implications:

This carve-in aligns the financial statements with legal requirements and enhances the relevance and reliability of financial information provided to stakeholders. It ensures transparency regarding the company’s obligations, thus aiding in better decision-making by users of financial statements.

Example 2: Right of Return (Ind AS 115 vs IFRS 15)

IFRS Requirement:

IFRS 15 requires entities to account for returns by recognizing a refund liability and an

asset for the right to recover products from customers on settling the refund liability.

Ind AS Addition:

Ind AS 115 includes specific guidance on accounting for transfers of control of a product with an unconditional right of return, addressing common commercial practices in India.

Rationale:

This guidance is designed to deal with the prevalent business practice in India where products are sold with an unconditional right of return. The additional guidance ensures that revenue recognition reflects the terms of the transaction accurately, considering the risk and rewards associated with the sale.

Implications:

By providing specific guidance on this issue, Ind AS 115 ensures that revenue recognition is consistent and reflects the economic reality of sales transactions in India. It enhances the comparability and reliability of financial statements, providing users with a clearer picture of the entity’s revenue and associated risks.

Example 3: Excise Duty (Ind AS 115 vs IFRS 15)

IFRS Requirement:

IFRS 15 does not specifically require the separate presentation of excise duty in the

statement of profit and loss.

Ind AS Addition:

Ind AS 115 mandates the separate presentation of excise duty in the statement of profit

and loss, reflecting statutory requirements in India.

Rationale:

Excise duty is a significant component of costs for many Indian companies, particularly in manufacturing and goods trading. Separately presenting excise duty provides transparency and allows users to understand its impact on the company’s financial performance.

Implications:

This requirement ensures that financial statements provide detailed information about costs, improving the clarity and usefulness of financial reports. It helps stakeholders, such as investors and regulators, better assess the financial health and performance of the entity.

Business Combinations Under Common Control (Ind AS 103 vs IFRS 3)

IFRS Requirement:

IFRS 3 excludes common control transactions from its scope, leaving it to local GAAP

to provide guidance.

Ind AS Addition:

Ind AS 103 provides specific guidance on accounting for business combinations under common control, reflecting common business practices in India where family-owned businesses and restructuring under common control are prevalent.

Rationale:

Common control transactions are widespread in India due to the prevalence of family-owned businesses and corporate restructurings within groups. Providing specific guidance ensures that these transactions are accounted for in a way that reflects their economic substance and provides meaningful information to users.

Implications:

This guidance enhances the relevance and reliability of financial statements, ensuring that the impact of common control transactions is transparently reported. It also promotes consistency in the accounting treatment of such transactions, aiding comparability across entities.

> Conclusion

While Ind AS aims to converge with IFRS, the differences highlight the need to adapt international standards to local contexts. These modifications ensure that the financial statements of Indian entities are relevant, reliable, and provide a true and fair view, considering the unique economic, legal, and business environment in India. Understanding these differences is crucial for stakeholders, including accountants, auditors, and investors, to interpret financial statements accurately and make informed decisions.

*****

Disclaimer: This article provides general information existing at the time of preparation and author takes no responsibility to update it with the subsequent changes in the law. The article is intended as a news update and author neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this article. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on specific facts and circumstances. This article does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncement.