Under Ind AS 10, the key question is when the underlying condition existed, not merely when management received the document. Evidence obtained before approval for issue can require a reporting-date adjustment if it confirms an existing condition. A genuinely new post-period event normally does not change reporting-date amounts, but material events need disclosure. Going concern requires a separate assessment. See ICAI’s official Ind AS 10 compendium, paragraphs 3 and 8–22.
Define and maintain the review window
For a company, the window runs from the reporting-period end to Board approval for issue; later shareholder approval does not ordinarily replace that cut-off. Public announcement of selected results does not end the review. Record the approval date and approving authority, as paragraph 17 requires, and identify any power of owners or others to amend statements after issue.
Use an event register with discovery date, underlying-condition date, source evidence, affected balance, accounting conclusion, journal or note reference and review responsibility. A management assertion that an event happened in April is incomplete if it only refers to the arrival of a lawyer’s letter about a March obligation. Conversely, using every subsequent loss to rewrite March amounts introduces hindsight.
Measure the supported reporting-date effect
Paragraph 9 identifies court settlements confirming existing obligations, information about reporting-date impairment, inventory sales giving evidence of earlier net realisable value, later determination of pre-period asset costs or sale proceeds, existing bonus obligations and discovered fraud or errors. Ind AS 10 determines whether later evidence belongs in the close; measurement and presentation still follow the relevant standard. Keep the supporting Ind AS 37 provision, Ind AS 109 credit-loss, Ind AS 2 inventory or Ind AS 19 benefit working with the event file.
For a customer failure, distinguish evidence of earlier credit deterioration from a new catastrophe that first affected an otherwise sound customer after the reporting date. For an inventory sale, separate the evidence about year-end market conditions from subsequent price changes or new damage. Do not substitute the later cash receipt automatically for a complete impairment model. The examples state the necessary measurement conclusions expressly, rather than purporting to replace those models.
Non-adjusting does not mean invisible
Paragraph 21 requires, for each material category of non-adjusting event, its nature and an estimate of financial effect, or a statement that an estimate cannot be made. A new post-year-end fire can require a meaningful note without a reporting-date asset write-off. Identify the gross exposure, uncertainty and separately assessed recoveries; do not use a speculative insurance receipt to make a material event disappear. Update disclosures about existing reporting-date conditions under paragraphs 19–20 even where no journal changes.
Equity dividends declared after the reporting period are not recognised as a liability at the period end under paragraphs 12–13, because no obligation existed then; the relevant note remains necessary. Corporate authority, legal distributability, tax and actual settlement require their own reviews. This discussion does not address non-cash distributions under Appendix A or liability-classified instruments.
Keep basis-of-accounting and amendment checks visible
Paragraphs 14–16 prohibit the going-concern basis where management determines after the period that it intends liquidation or cessation, or has no realistic alternative. That consequence is more fundamental than calling the event non-adjusting. Separately, the compendium’s paragraph 3 footnote and paragraph 23CA omit the former loan-covenant waiver closing paragraph for annual periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026. A legacy teaching example about a post-year-end waiver must not be copied into a 2026–27 classification review. The illustrations below concern other events and assume the company remains a going concern, except that this assumption must always be checked.
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts below are fictional. Assumptions describe the model, not additional statutory rules.
Illustrative example 1: Court settlement confirms an existing obligation
For the illustrative year ended 31 March 2027, financial statements are approved on 25 May 2027. A 20 April settlement confirms an obligation already existing at year-end. The appropriate provision under the applicable measurement analysis is ₹11,00,000, compared with ₹8,00,000 recorded. Increase the provision and relevant expense by ₹3,00,000. The fact that settlement occurred after March does not justify leaving only the old estimate.
Illustrative example 2: Customer insolvency supplies earlier-condition evidence
A ₹10,00,000 gross receivable has a recorded allowance of ₹2,00,000. Before the assumed approval date, insolvency evidence confirms year-end impairment; the completed credit-loss analysis establishes a required allowance of ₹7,00,000 and net recovery value of ₹3,00,000. Additional allowance is ₹5,00,000. This is a supplied measurement conclusion, not a rule that all bankrupt customers must be written down to a fixed percentage.
Illustrative example 3: Inventory sale confirms year-end NRV
Inventory cost at year-end is ₹8,00,000. A sale before approval supplies reliable evidence that year-end selling proceeds were ₹7,20,000 and selling costs ₹40,000, with no completion cost. On these facts, year-end NRV is ₹6,80,000 and the write-down is ₹1,20,000. If a new post-year-end shock instead caused the lower price, the same cash figures would not automatically prove this reporting-date adjustment.
Illustrative example 4: Existing bonus obligation is quantified later
A pre-existing legal or constructive bonus obligation relates to services before year-end. The completed measurement before approval establishes 4% of eligible remuneration of ₹50,00,000, giving ₹2,00,000. An existing provision of ₹1,50,000 needs a ₹50,000 increase. The 4% is an assumed contractual measurement input, not a statutory bonus rate created by Ind AS 10.
Illustrative example 5: A new fire after year-end
A plant with year-end carrying amount of ₹12,00,000 is destroyed on 18 April 2027 by a new event, with no related damage or impairment condition at 31 March. Assuming going concern remains appropriate, the March write-off for this new fire is ₹0. If material, disclose its nature and supported financial effect; ₹12,00,000 is the supplied carrying exposure, before separately assessed costs or recoveries. The later-period loss is not waived by the absence of a March adjustment.
Illustrative example 6: Equity dividend declared after the period
After 31 March but before the assumed approval date, a validly declared cash dividend is ₹2.40 on 5,00,000 eligible equity shares. The declared cash dividend is ₹12,00,000. Under paragraphs 12–13, the reporting-date liability for that post-period declaration is ₹0; prepare the appropriate note. This calculation assumes eligible share numbers and valid corporate action and does not compute withholding or payment deadlines.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirm the reporting framework | Ind AS applicability and the annual period being closed. |
| 2 | Set the approval cut-off | Board approval evidence and distinction from later shareholder approval. |
| 3 | Collect events systematically | Legal, credit, inventory, HR, treasury and governance confirmations. |
| 4 | Date the underlying condition | Contemporaneous evidence distinguishing period-end facts from new events. |
| 5 | Choose adjusting or non-adjusting treatment | Reasoned paragraph-level conclusion, not a document-date shortcut. |
| 6 | Apply the measurement standard | Supported provision, credit-loss, inventory or benefit computation. |
| 7 | Reconcile journals and balances | Before/after carrying amounts, expense effects and ledger posting evidence. |
| 8 | Complete event disclosures | Material categories, nature, financial effect or inability to estimate, plus updated existing-condition notes. |
| 9 | Reassess going concern and amendments | Current forecasts, basis assessment and period-specific covenant-text check. |
| 10 | Approve a consistent final file | Event register tied to journals, notes, approval date and management review. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Is every April document a non-adjusting event?
No. It may supply evidence about a condition that already existed at the reporting date.
2. When does the company’s review window end?
At Board approval for issue under the standard’s definition, subject to the actual approval structure.
3. Does the AGM date usually replace Board approval?
No. Paragraph 5 distinguishes later shareholder approval from approval for issue by the Board.
4. Does an earnings announcement close the window?
No. Paragraph 7 includes events up to approval even after selected results have been announced.
5. How should a court settlement be analysed?
Determine whether it confirms an existing obligation, then measure the provision under the relevant requirements.
6. Does customer bankruptcy always require a 100% allowance?
No. Assess its evidence about year-end credit impairment and complete the applicable credit-loss measurement.
7. Can a later inventory sale support a year-end write-down?
Yes, where it provides evidence about year-end NRV; distinguish genuinely new price changes or damage.
8. Is a later discretionary bonus automatically accrued?
No. Paragraph 9(d) concerns a present legal or constructive obligation at the reporting date arising from earlier events.
9. Can fraud discovered before approval be ignored until next year?
No. Assess whether it shows the statements being approved are incorrect and make the required corrections.
10. Does a post-year-end fire always adjust the asset?
A new fire normally does not change earlier amounts, but material disclosure and going-concern consequences need review.
11. What must a material non-adjusting-event note contain?
The event’s nature and an estimate of financial effect, or a statement that an estimate cannot be made.
12. Can disclosure change without a journal?
Yes. New evidence about an existing condition may require an updated note even if recognised amounts do not change.
13. Are post-period equity dividends year-end liabilities?
Paragraphs 12–13 say they are not recognised at that earlier date; disclose them as required.
14. Does this dividend answer cover every preference instrument?
No. The discussion concerns equity instruments and cash dividends; classification and special distributions need separate analysis.
15. Can going-concern failure be handled by a routine event note?
No. Paragraphs 14–16 can require a fundamental change in the accounting basis and associated disclosures.
16. Why check the loan-waiver amendment in an events review?
The former paragraph 3 exception is omitted for annual periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026. Old examples can otherwise produce the wrong classification.
Conclusion
Build an Ind AS 10 event register that separates reporting-date conditions from later events, records supported adjustments and completes material non-adjusting disclosures.