Ind AS 118: The Standard Is the Easy Part — A companion to the IFRS 18 / Ind AS 118 diagnostic

1 · The essenceConverged on the architecture, unconverged on everything around it

The Accounting Standards Board of the ICAI issued the exposure draft of Ind AS 118 on 6 January 2025, with comments closing on 6 April 2025. It replaces Ind AS 1. Read alongside IFRS 18 it is close to a transcription: the five categories, the mandatory subtotals, the management-defined performance measure framework and the aggregation principles arrive intact. The work of an Indian transition is therefore not in learning a different standard. It is in the collision between a converged standard and an unconverged reporting environment.

That distinction matters enough to state as a discipline. Three planes of difference exist and conflating them is the most common way an Indian implementation goes wrong.

Plane	What it compares	How much substance is there
A	Ind AS 118 against IFRS 18	Very little. The ICAI comparison lists six differences, all presentational or consequential. None touches the categorisation architecture.
B	Ind AS 118 against the current Indian regime	Nearly all of it. Schedule III Division II, the SEBI LODR results formats, the RBI and IRDAI deferrals, and the ledger architecture behind them.
C	The regulatory process itself	Who notifies, when, and what has to move alongside. Presently unresolved, and the reason no Ind AS 118 output can be treated as final.

Status, stated plainly This is an exposure draft. MCA notification has not happened. The Schedule III amendment that must accompany it has not been published. The SEBI LODR results formats have not been aligned. The proposed effective date is annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2027, fifteen months after IFRS 18 takes effect globally. Every paragraph reference in this piece is to the exposure draft and may change on notification. Nothing here should be presented to an audit committee as settled Indian GAAP.

The six differences the ICAI actually lists

The comparison appendix to the exposure draft is unusually short, and worth reading in full because it is so much narrower than most commentary implies.

Difference	What it means
Single statement only	IFRS 18 permits either a single statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, or a separate profit or loss statement immediately preceding it. Ind AS 118 allows only the single statement approach. Paragraph 12 is modified and paragraphs 13 and 22(b) deleted, with numbering retained.
Terminology	Balance sheet rather than statement of financial position; Statement of Profit and Loss rather than statement of financial performance; approval rather than authorisation of financial statements for issue.
No terminology alternatives	IFRS 18.11 lets entities choose their own titles for the statements. Ind AS 118 removes the choice, since one set of titles applies to all Indian entities. The freedom to relabel totals and subtotals faithfully is retained.
No 52-week period	IFRS 18.29 permits a 52-week reporting period. Deleted, with the paragraph number retained.
Bargain purchase gains	Ind AS 103 requires a bargain purchase gain to go to other comprehensive income and accumulate in capital reserve, not to profit or loss. Paragraphs 107(c)(iv), B87(l), 112 and B49(f) are modified accordingly.
Equity method in separate statements	Paragraph B44(a) is deleted because the equity method is not permitted under Ind AS 27. Paragraphs 55(a) and B43(a) change to match.

Read that list again and notice what is not on it. The five categories are unchanged. The mandatory subtotals are unchanged. The specified main business activities exception is unchanged. The MPM definition and its disclosure package are unchanged. The aggregation and disaggregation principles and the restriction on the label “other” are unchanged. An entity that has built a rule library for IFRS 18 does not build a second one for India.

Exhibit 1 The standard converges; the environment around it does not

Effort estimates built on the standard alone will be wrong in India, because the standard is the part that has already been done.

2 · The decision treeThe same six tests, in the same order

The exposure draft describes the operating category in terms worth quoting for their bluntness: it is the default category, and it includes all income and expenses arising from a company’s operations regardless of whether they are volatile or unusual in some way. That last clause is the sentence that ends the exceptional-items practice in Indian reporting.

Exhibit 2 Five categories, and operating takes whatever the other four reject

The exposure draft describes operating as giving a complete picture of operations for the period. Completeness is the point: nothing may be set aside as unrepresentative.

Two subtotals are described as new, not three

A detail of the Indian drafting worth registering. The exposure draft speaks of two additional subtotals — operating profit or loss, and profit or loss before financing and income taxes — because profit before tax already exists in the Schedule III format. IFRS 18 is usually described as introducing three. The arithmetic is identical; the framing differs because the Indian starting point differs. An implementation team reading both documents should not spend time reconciling the count.

The qualifier attached to the second subtotal is the substantive one. Profit or loss before financing and income taxes is required unless prohibited in specific circumstances — those circumstances being an entity with a specified main business activity of providing financing to customers, where the subtotal would be uninformative because the cost of funds already sits in operating.

The financing category, as the draft words it

One sentence in the key features summary repays attention: the financing category includes interest expenses on all liabilities. Not only borrowings. Lease liabilities and pension liabilities are named. An Indian reporter that currently presents lease interest inside finance costs is already close; one that presents the whole lease charge as a single operating expense has a split to build.

3 · Management-defined performance measuresA narrower sweep than most Indian reporters assume

The Indian term is management-defined performance measure, against the international management performance measure. The definitions are the same: a subtotal of income and expenses, other than those specified or required by Ind ASs, that a company uses in public communications outside the financial statements to communicate management’s view of an aspect of the financial performance of the company as a whole.

The draft gives adjusted profit or loss as the example that qualifies, and free cash flow and customer retention rate as examples that do not. The distinction is not importance; it is whether the measure is a subtotal of income and expenses. Free cash flow is a cash measure, so however central it is to a company’s narrative it falls outside the framework entirely.

What counts as a public communication, and what expressly does not

This is where an Indian sweep most often goes wrong, and it goes wrong in the direction of excessive breadth rather than insufficient. The exposure draft states that public communications outside the financial statements include management commentary, press releases and investor presentations, and that they do not include oral communications, written transcripts of oral communications, or social media posts.

A correction worth making explicitly Earlier guidance issued alongside the diagnostic tool, including its own question bank, advised sweeping transcripts and social media into the MPM population on the reasoning that scoping wide is cheaper than being caught. That advice was wrong. Both IFRS 18.B119 and the corresponding Ind AS 118 paragraph carve those categories out, because stakeholders told the Board they were the hardest to monitor. Sweeping them in is not a breach, but it imports reconciliation and audit obligations the standard does not impose. The tool and its question bank have been corrected.

Exhibit 3 Three channels are in scope; three are carved out

An earnings call is out of scope. The investor deck published for that same call is in scope. The boundary is the medium, not the content.

The disclosure package

The exposure draft requires all MPMs in a single note, with the same four components as the international standard: a reconciliation to the most directly comparable subtotal listed in Ind AS 118 or required by Ind ASs, including the income tax effect and the effect on non-controlling interests for each item in the reconciliation; a description of how the measure communicates management’s view and how it is calculated; an explanation of any change in the measures or their calculation; and a statement that the measure reflects management’s view and is not necessarily comparable with similarly labelled measures of other companies.

For an Indian group the per-item requirement is the binding constraint, because most adjusted measures here are assembled at consolidation rather than derived from tagged accounts. A restructuring charge spanning several states and a subsidiary with minority shareholders needs its tax effect and its non-controlling-interest effect computed line by line. That is a chart of accounts capability, and it does not appear by writing a policy.

4 · Aggregation and disaggregationThree tests the Schedule III habit does not satisfy

The exposure draft sets out the principle in three requirements. Items are aggregated based on shared characteristics and disaggregated based on characteristics that are not shared. Items are aggregated or disaggregated so that the primary financial statements and the notes fulfil their respective roles. And the aggregation or disaggregation must not obscure material information. Companies are specifically required to disaggregate whenever the resulting information is material; where it is not presented on the face, it is disclosed in the notes.

Indian practice has an obstacle here that IFRS reporters do not share. Schedule III prescribes line items. A prescribed format encourages the view that compliance is achieved by filling in the prescribed lines, and the standard’s question — does this grouping obscure something material? — is never asked, because the format did not invite it.

Exhibit 4 A prescribed format satisfies the form and can still fail the principle

Figures are Tata Consultancy Services consolidated for FY 2025-26, in rupees crore, taken from the audited note. The left column is how the caption appears today.

The nature disclosures, and why Indian charts of accounts struggle

The draft requires companies presenting expenses by function to disclose the amount of depreciation, amortisation, employee benefits, impairment losses and write-downs of inventories included in each line item in the operating category. Not in total — in each line item.

Indian entities reporting under Schedule III Division II present largely by nature already, which sounds like an advantage and partly is. The complication is the mixed presentations that Schedule III tolerates in practice, where cost of materials sits beside a functional caption. The moment any line is functional, the by-line nature analysis is owed across all of them.

5 · LabellingThe Indian rule is drafted tighter than the international one reads

The exposure draft is direct. An entity shall label and describe items in a way that faithfully represents the characteristics of the item. It shall label items as “other” only if it cannot find a more informative label. And where it cannot, it shall use a label that describes the aggregated item as precisely as possible — the draft gives “other operating expenses” and “other finance expenses” as its own examples of what precision looks like.

That last requirement deserves emphasis because it is the one most likely to be skimmed. A bare “other” is not the fallback. The fallback is the most precise residual label available, which means the entity must at least know what category of thing is inside the bucket even when it has decided not to itemise it.

An entity that cannot say what kind of expense sits inside its residual has not satisfied the labelling requirement by calling the residual “other”. On the fallback that is not a fallback

Subtotal labels and the Schedule III collision

Ind AS 118 retains the freedom to use other terms for the totals, subtotals and line items it requires, provided the labels faithfully represent the characteristics of the items. What it removes is the freedom to rename the statements themselves.

The unresolved question is what the amended Schedule III will prescribe. Division II presently mandates a format that does not contain operating profit or profit before financing and income taxes, and does contain an exceptional items line that the standard prohibits as a subtotal on the face. Until the amendment is published, an Indian entity modelling its future statement is modelling against a format that does not yet exist. That is not a reason to delay the ledger work — the categorisation is settled and the chart of accounts can be built now — but it is a reason to keep the presentation layer configurable rather than hard-coded.

6 · Tata Consultancy ServicesRunning a real Indian filer through the standard

Everything below is taken from the audited consolidated financial statements of Tata Consultancy Services Limited for the year ended 31 March 2026, at note level. Profit for the period is ₹ 49,454 crore before the exercise and ₹ 49,454 crore after it. What moves is everything above that line.

On the figures Audited amounts, transcribed from the face of the statement and from notes 46, 47, 52b, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58. Every caption ties to the face before categorisation begins. The Ind AS 118 columns are an indicative diagnostic produced by applying the exposure draft, not a restatement prepared or reviewed by the company or its auditors.

What the market reads today

TCS reports profit from continuing operations before exceptional items and tax of ₹ 70,013 crore. That figure carries the weight of an operating profit in analyst models and in the company’s own commentary, because Schedule III gives no other candidate. Under Ind AS 118 the operating subtotal is ₹ 62,950 crore.

Exhibit 5 Seven thousand crore of the headline is presentational, not operational

A 2.6 percentage point fall in the headline margin with profit unchanged. Anyone reading the first Ind AS 118 statement without a bridge reads a deterioration that did not occur.

Where each caption goes

Caption, as TCS reports it	₹ crore	Ind AS 118 treatment	The point
Revenue from consultancy services	267,021	Operating, entire	A single-activity IT services group needs no revenue decomposition.
Other income	4,402	Splits three ways	₹ 3,755 crore to investing, ₹ 647 crore stays operating, and one judgement item. The caption ceases to exist.
Cost of consultancy services	(4,399)	Operating	Materials, stock-in-trade and inventory movement are separate natures.
Employee benefits expense	(154,994)	Operating	Must absorb the Labour Codes charge currently sitting in exceptional items.
Depreciation, amortisation and impairment	(5,560)	Operating	Combined in the note. Impairment must be separable to strike a pre-depreciation subtotal.
Other expenses	(35,230)	Operating, disaggregated	Thirteen nature-level lines, and a residual that needs a precise label.
Finance costs	(1,227)	Financing, less a judgement	₹ 778 crore of it is lease liability interest. ₹ 9 crore is interest on tax matters, which may not belong here.
Exceptional items	(4,526)	Dissolved into operating	Prohibited as a subtotal. Each constituent returns to its natural category and nature.
Tax expense	(16,033)	Income taxes	A closed line. Only Ind AS 12 amounts may enter it.

Four findings an Indian IT services group should expect

The exceptional block dissolves, and one component is mandatorily operating. Restructuring of ₹ 1,388 crore has no route out of operating profit. The legal claim provision of ₹ 1,010 crore returns to operating as a provision expense. The New Labour Codes charge of ₹ 2,128 crore returns as employee benefits by nature, which means it must also feed the employee benefits total in the note. Together they take 170 basis points off operating margin, and none of it is a change in performance.

Investing income leaves entirely. Investing in assets is not a main business activity of an IT services group, so ₹ 3,035 crore of interest income, ₹ 35 crore of dividends and ₹ 685 crore of investment gains move out of the operating result. For a company holding a large net cash balance, treasury performance becomes separately visible and separately judged. The capital allocation question follows the disclosure.

Interest on income taxes is the sharpest open judgement, and it is bidirectional. TCS has ₹ 852 crore of interest on income tax refund inside other income and ₹ 9 crore of interest on tax matters inside finance costs. The IASB confirmed in 2017 that IAS 12 does not address interest and penalties on income taxes; the entity chooses between Ind AS 12 and Ind AS 37 with Ind AS 109. The income taxes category is closed to anything not accounted for under Ind AS 12, so the choice determines the category. Whichever way it is concluded, it must be applied consistently to interest received and interest paid — and TCS presently presents them in different captions.

Finance costs are almost entirely leases. Of ₹ 1,218 crore in the financing category, ₹ 778 crore is interest on lease liabilities. Operating profit absorbs ₹ 1,978 crore of right-of-use depreciation while the financing subtotal takes the interest leg. A reader comparing TCS with a peer that owns rather than leases its estate is comparing two different splits of the same economics, which is precisely what the mandatory categorisation is designed to expose.

Old against new, on the same page

The most useful thing an entity can put in front of its board is not a restated statement. It is both statements side by side, with the same profit at the bottom of each.

Exhibit 6 The same period, presented both ways

Every figure is audited. The two columns differ only in where the lines fall.

How the margin definition itself changes

The word “margin” survives the transition. Its numerator does not. Under Ind AS 1 there was no defined operating subtotal, so an entity used whatever the Schedule III format gave it — usually profit before exceptional items and tax. Under Ind AS 118 the numerator is a defined subtotal, and three things it used to contain are gone while one thing it used to exclude is back.

Component	Old numerator	New numerator	Why
Revenue and operating costs	In	In	Unchanged.
Restructuring, litigation provisions, statutory charges	Out, below the line	In	A separate exceptional-items subtotal is prohibited on the face. Restructuring is mandatorily operating.
Interest income, dividends, fair value movements	In, via other income	Out	Investing, unless investing in assets is a main business activity.
Finance costs	Out, below the line	Out	Unchanged in effect, but now a defined category including lease and pension interest.
Equity-accounted results	Presented separately	Out	Always investing. Not a policy choice.
Denominator	Revenue	Revenue	Never changes. Every movement in a margin comes from the numerator.

Which indicators move, which are new, and which are controls

Sorting the indicator set into three buckets is more useful than listing it. An indicator that moves needs a restated comparative and a published bridge. One that is newly computable is a disclosure the entity has never had to explain. One that should not move at all is a control: if it does, something has been misclassified.

Bucket	Indicator	Old	New	What to do about it
Moves	Operating margin	26.2%	23.6%	Publish the bridge with the first statement, not in answer to the first question about it.
	Operating profit	70,013	62,950	Two definitions of the same word. Restate the comparative before either number is quoted.
	EBITDA-type measure	28.3%	25.7%	The new one is OPDAI, a subtotal the standard names, so presenting it does not trigger the MPM note. Any EBITDA on another basis does.
	Interest cover	57.1x	51.7x	Both inputs become standard-defined, so it turns comparable between entities. Check every covenant that references the old basis.
Newly computable	OPDAI margin	—	25.8%	The compliant analogue to EBITDA, and not equal to it.
	Profit before financing and tax margin	—	25.0%	Performance before the effects of how the entity is funded.
	Investing yield contribution	—	5.6%	Treasury performance as a distinct return. Expect the capital allocation question to follow the disclosure.
	Non-operating share of profit before tax	—	3.9%	How much of the result is earned outside the business the entity says it runs.
Controls	Profit before tax margin	24.5%	24.5%	These must not move. If any of them does, an amount has been misclassified into or out of the income tax line, or an account has been counted twice. Use them as the first check on any restatement, before looking at anything else.
	Net margin	18.5%	18.5%
	Effective tax rate	24.5%	24.5%
	Earnings per share, return on equity	Unchanged	Unchanged

The denominator never changes. Every movement in every margin comes from a numerator that crosses a subtotal — which is exactly the set of measures a covenant or an incentive plan is most likely to reference. On why the contracts review has the longest lead time

Running your own numbers

A template accompanies this piece. It takes a chart of accounts at note level and nine answers, and returns the two statements side by side, the bridge between them, the effect on fourteen indicators sorted into the three buckets above, and six arithmetic checks that must all read PASS before the output is used. A worked version filled with the TCS figures above ships alongside it, so the blank one can be compared against a known answer.

7 · Frequently askedThirty-eight questions, weighted towards the Indian environment

Answers are drawn from the exposure draft itself, including its key features summary and its comparison with IFRS 18, and from the audited Tata filings used above. Where a matter is unresolved because notification has not occurred, that is said rather than smoothed over.

Status, scope and effective date

The subtotals and the categories

Specified main business activities

Management-defined performance measures

Aggregation, disaggregation and labelling

Interaction with the Indian reporting environment

Transition and practical sequencing

38 questions. The proportion concerning Schedule III, SEBI LODR and the notification process rather than the standard itself is the honest measure of where an Indian transition actually spends its time.

8 · How to use thisRead it against the IFRS 18 companion, not instead of it

These two pieces are deliberately not symmetrical. The IFRS 18 companion carries the reasoning behind the categorisation, the decision tree, the MPM framework and the aggregation principle in full, because that is where the substance sits and it is common to both standards. This piece carries only what is Indian: the six drafting differences, the status of the notification, the Schedule III and SEBI LODR collision, and a worked example on a real Indian filer.

An Indian reader working through the standard for the first time should read the IFRS 18 companion for the mechanics and return here for the environment.

If you are	Read in this order	And then
New to the standard	The IFRS 18 companion in full → the essence and the six differences here	Do not read this piece first. It assumes the mechanics and would leave you with the exceptions but not the rule.
Scoping an Indian transition	The essence → the interaction questions in the FAQ → the Tata comparison	Budget the ledger work now and the presentation layer later. The categorisation is settled; the format it renders into is not.
Preparing an audit committee paper	The status note → the TCS example → the transition questions	Lead with what is settled, and be explicit that the exposure draft is not notified. A paper that presents Ind AS 118 as current GAAP will be corrected in the room.
Consolidating a mixed-GAAP group	The interaction questions in the FAQ	An IFRS 18 subsidiary needs no conforming adjustment. An AS-reporting subsidiary needs a full conversion. Size the two separately.
Running your own numbers	The TCS example, then the diagnostic tool	Load at note level. The face of the statement alone overstated operating profit by six per cent in testing, while still tying to profit for the period.

On the companion tool The diagnostic reads a chart of accounts, applies the categorisation described here, and returns the restated statement, the reconciliation, the revised chart of accounts, the MPM register, the judgement register and the sensitivity analysis. It runs entirely in the browser; the financial data is never transmitted. Ind AS 118 outputs carry the exposure-draft caveat on every page, and every item flagged as a judgement remains the entity’s to conclude.

Three habits specific to an Indian implementation

Keep the three planes apart in every paper you write. Ind AS 118 against IFRS 18 is thin. Ind AS 118 against today’s Indian regime is the whole project. The regulatory process is unresolved. Merging them produces effort estimates that are wrong in both directions at once.

Do not wait for the Schedule III amendment to start. The categorisation architecture is converged and final in substance. The chart of accounts, the rule library and the MPM tagging can all be built against it today. What must remain configurable is the rendering.

Settle the bidirectional judgements before the first close. Interest on income taxes is the clearest example: it appears in two different captions in most Indian statements, and one policy must govern both. Judgements settled after a close cost several times what they cost before one.

9 · AbbreviationsIndian terms, and where they differ from the international ones

The list below covers what is specific to the Indian environment. The standard’s own vocabulary — nature, function, OPDAI, Type 1 and Type 2 liabilities, the independent return criterion — is common to both standards and is set out in the IFRS 18 companion rather than repeated here.

Term	What it means	Domain
ASB	Accounting Standards Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, which issued the Ind AS 118 exposure draft	India regulatory
Division I	Schedule III format for entities reporting under Accounting Standards rather than Ind AS	Schedule III
Division II	Schedule III format for entities reporting under Ind AS. Must be amended for Ind AS 118; the amendment is pending	Schedule III
Division III	Schedule III format for NBFCs reporting under Ind AS	Schedule III
Exposure draft	A proposed standard issued for public comment. Ind AS 118 remains at this stage; it is not notified Indian GAAP	India regulatory
ICAI	The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India	India regulatory
IRDAI	Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, whose deferral keeps insurers outside the Ind AS roadmap	India regulatory
Ind AS 1	Presentation of Financial Statements, to be replaced by Ind AS 118	Standards
Ind AS 103	Business Combinations. Requires bargain purchase gains to OCI and capital reserve, driving four modified paragraphs	Standards
Ind AS 105	Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations. Defines the discontinued operations category	Standards
Ind AS 107	Financial Instruments: Disclosures. Receives some requirements moved out of Ind AS 1	Standards
Ind AS 110	Consolidated Financial Statements. Paragraphs 19 and B87 govern uniform accounting policies in a mixed-GAAP group	Standards
Ind AS 12	Income Taxes. Only amounts within its scope may enter the income taxes category	Standards
Ind AS 19	Employee Benefits. Source of the past service cost recognised on the New Labour Codes	Standards
Ind AS 27	Separate Financial Statements. Does not permit the equity method, which is why paragraph B44(a) is deleted	Standards
Ind AS 7	Statement of Cash Flows. Amended to require the operating profit subtotal as the indirect-method starting point	Standards
Ind AS 8	To be retitled Basis of Preparation of Financial Statements when Ind AS 118 takes effect	Standards
LODR	SEBI Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, which prescribe quarterly results formats not yet aligned to Ind AS 118	India regulatory
MCA	Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which notifies Ind AS. Notification of Ind AS 118 is pending	India regulatory
MDPM	Management-defined performance measure, the Indian term for what IFRS 18 calls a management performance measure	Ind AS 118
NBFC	Non-banking financial company. Above the prescribed thresholds these are inside Ind AS and inside this standard	Sector
New Labour Codes	Four consolidated labour legislations effective 21 November 2025. The resulting past service cost appears as an exceptional item across corporate India and returns to operating profit under Ind AS 118	India regulatory
Operating category	The default. All income and expenses not classified elsewhere, volatile or unusual or not	Ind AS 118
Plane A / B / C	A discipline for separating differences: Ind AS 118 against IFRS 18; against the current Indian regime; and the notification process itself	Analysis
RBI	Reserve Bank of India, whose deferral keeps scheduled commercial banks outside the Ind AS roadmap	India regulatory
SEBI	Securities and Exchange Board of India	India regulatory
Schedule III	The Companies Act 2013 format for financial statements. Must be amended to accommodate the new subtotals and to remove the exceptional items line	India regulatory
Specified main business activity	Investing in particular types of assets, or providing financing to customers. Brings otherwise investing or financing items into operating	Ind AS 118
Useful structured summary	The stated role of the primary financial statements, and the criterion governing what reaches the face	Ind AS 118

The standard is the easy part. Ind AS 118 is converged with IFRS 18 on everything that drives a chart of accounts. An entity that has built a rule library for one does not build a second.

The environment is the project. Schedule III, the SEBI LODR formats and the notification process carry almost all of the Indian implementation effort, and none of them is resolved.

Profit does not move; the headline does. On TCS’s audited FY 2025-26 figures, operating margin falls 2.6 percentage points with profit for the period unchanged at ₹ 49,454 crore. That gap needs a bridge published alongside the first statement, not in answer to the first question about it.

One transition effect is sector-independent. The New Labour Codes past service cost appears as an exceptional item in every Tata filing examined, and in every case returns to operating profit as employee benefits by nature. Every Indian reporter with an employee base should expect it.

If the format a company reports into does not yet exist, what exactly is it preparing for?

10 · ReferencesSources, and what each one anchors

The exposure draft

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Accounting Standards Board, Exposure Draft of Ind AS 118 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements, issued 6 January 2025, comments closing 6 April 2025. Source. Anchors the five categories, the two additional subtotals, the specified main business activities test, the MDPM definition and disclosure package, the aggregation principles, the restriction on the label “other”, the Ind AS 7 amendments, the proposed 1 April 2027 effective date, and the six-item comparison with IFRS 18 in section 1.

Audited financial statements used in the worked example

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2026, and notes 46, 47, 52b, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58. Anchors every figure in section 6: revenue of ₹ 267,021 crore, other income of ₹ 4,402 crore, finance costs of ₹ 1,227 crore, exceptional items of ₹ 4,526 crore, and profit for the period of ₹ 49,454 crore.
Tata Elxsi Limited, Tata Teleservices Limited and Tata Capital Limited, standalone financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2026. Anchors the four-entity comparison table and the observation that the New Labour Codes charge appears in all four.

The international standard and its interpretive literature

International Accounting Standards Board, IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements, issued 9 April 2024. Source. The converged source. Paragraph B119 anchors the public communications scope, including the exclusion of oral communications, transcripts and social media posts.
EY, Applying IFRS: A closer look at IFRS 18, updated April 2026; KPMG, First Impressions: Presentation and disclosure — IFRS 18, June 2024; Deloitte, iGAAP in Focus, April 2024. Anchor the interpretive positions carried across from the IFRS 18 companion, including the interest-on-income-taxes analysis and the audit-scope point on performance measures.
IASB agenda decision on interest and penalties related to income taxes, September 2017. Anchors the judgement described in section 6 as bidirectional and open.

Companion · same territory, the mechanics rather than the environment

IFRS 18: Where the Line Falls, the companion piece. The decision tree in full, the management performance measure framework, the aggregation and labelling principles, a worked consumer goods example, and forty-three questions answered from the EY, Deloitte and KPMG publications.

Start here If you have not read the IFRS 18 companion, read it before acting on this one. The mechanics live there; this piece only tells you what India does differently, and that is a much shorter list than most commentary suggests.