Can you please attach screenshot where management told that loan was given for subsidiary? As far as i know, they clearly mentioned loan was for Prabha Energy
check latest concall (last 5-10 min) …the question was asked in the concall …
Bro they are correct. Loan is given to both Dolphin & Prabha.
Can you please tell me, where you find them wrong?
Finally! I have been saying this since the last 3 days in the thread but it has been deemed as “Nonsense”
The auditors did not follow SA 505 External Confirmations. It was the management who are confirming these receivables. ECL should have been booked. It’s a clear departure from both accounting and auditing standards.
If this is true, it’s the second time we have caught the management lying on record.
Also there is some portal introduced by SEBI for Related Party Transaction Analysis. It could prove helpful in this case.
Why not you are asking them to book one time gain in P&L when they had bought debtors of Kandla in their books?
Looks like someone forgot his Matching principal
I wish they should have booked gain at that time, so that you guys get your answers that the impact of provision would be Nil
True
Those guys are not AI who will provide you each precise details at a given moment.
Some data would be here and there
I thought bargain purchases are recorded in the P&L as it is? It has already been recorded, no?
I have little knowledge when it comes to business combinations
Instead of transferring to P&l ,they have directly routed that gain to Reserve & surplus
If not to Prabha Energy, how comes entry is there in the consolidated sheet. If given to Dolphin, entry won’t there in the consolidated balance sheet..
1 Like
Because transferring to P&L is not allowed as per Ind AS 103. I just checked
So your point of booking a one time income is refuted because the law says otherwise.
I don’t know which material you are referring.
Attached is the original source which should be referred
Please read carefully
No one mentioned this
Yeah exactly. Per this photo, bargain purchases should be recorded in OCI (Reserve). It does not form part of P&L. So there’s no question of booking a one time gain of Debtors In the P&L.
Let’s just forget the standard for once. Even if the company booked a one time gain on debtors, it would be double counting of income. Why? Because debtors arise from credit sales which is already a part of the consolidated P&L. So it doesn’t make sense logically to book a one time gain on acquiring debtors.
You could argue that sales is only 4 crore but debtors is 220 crores and they could book a one time gain (forgetting the standard). I still wouldn’t agree.
Before we respectfully argue further, I would have to check the notes to accounts to find the figure for gain in purchase recorded so that we could come to a conclusion with some clarity. There’s no point for the both of us to continue going on without having numbers on our hand.
First you decide what you want to say
You always say two contradictory things at a time
You said, I forgot my matching principle, ask the management to book a one time gain in P&L of the debtors
We both agreed it’s not allowed as per Ind AS 103. You have to book it in reserves
Simple, what’s there to contradict.
I understand that the impact of provision is NIL, but that doesn’t mean you don’t do it.
Finally you agreed atleast on the impact part
Now creating provision or not,it’s a very subjective matter. I guess we have to give them atleast a year,since these debtors have been brought to books in this year only.
When those debtor ageing fall to threshold of >1 year, then we can also question them for the provision creation.
Q during concall
Prabha sep ended balance sheet, showing an increase in non current liability loan.
Prabha’s annual cas flow, only 15 lakhs paid as interest.
Now until & unless the mgt says or through the AR only, we can find out, whom did they give 23 cr in H1 this Fy.
2 Likes
What do you want to convey? Are you asking something?
I agreed that the provision would have no economic impact long back, refer to my post containing (100+2-2).
Regarding more than 1 years, the balances have been outstanding since 31.03.2022
Now just because they are in Deep’s books since only the last few months is not a valid contention for not booking ECL. ECL as pointed out by Mr. Arun is based on recoverability (which is a management judgement) and not based on the time period from which the debtors are in our books.
I shared my observation..If any one can find out, whom they have given thins 23cr loan, would be helpful in assessing the mgt quality..