Drivers of Asset Statement Reporting in Indian Project Finance: A Financial Perspective

Abstract

Project finance has become a core funding mechanism for India’s infrastructure and other capital-intensive sectors, where lending decisions depend primarily on project cash flows and the balance-sheet strength of special purpose vehicles (SPVs). In this context, asset statement reporting (the asset side of the Statement of Financial Position) is a critical information signal for lenders, rating agencies, and regulators because it reflects project progress, capitalization discipline, and emerging risk. This article examines the key drivers of asset statement reporting in Indian project finance from a financial perspective.

Introduction

Project finance is widely used in India for infrastructure and capital-intensive projects, including power, roads, ports, and renewable energy. These projects are typically executed through special purpose vehicles (SPVs) with limited or non-recourse debt, where lenders rely primarily on project cash flows rather than sponsor balance sheets. In this context, asset statement reporting—the recording, measurement, and disclosure of assets like PPE, CWIP, capital advances, intangible assets, and ROU assets—plays a central role in signaling project progress, financial discipline, and risk to lenders and stakeholders.

Indian accounting standards (Ind AS), particularly Ind AS 16, 23, and 36, govern the recognition, capitalization, depreciation, borrowing cost treatment, and impairment of assets. Managerial judgment in applying these standards—such as determining when an asset is ready for use, estimating useful lives, and assessing impairments—directly influences reported asset values and related financial ratios.

The key drivers of asset statement reporting in Indian project finance include:

1. Financial structure and leverage: High debt and tight covenants influence capitalization timing and reporting conservatism.

2. Project lifecycle: Construction-phase assets like CWIP dominate until commercial operations commence, with delays affecting capitalization and depreciation.

3. Accounting policy and managerial discretion: Choices on depreciation, useful lives, and impairment assumptions affect reported asset values.

4. Borrowing cost capitalization: Interest during construction can substantially increase asset balances.

5. Sector-specific characteristics: Revenue models, regulatory risks, and concession arrangements shape reporting patterns.

6. Governance, audit, and lender monitoring: Oversight enhances transparency, discipline, and reporting credibility.

7. Regulatory and prudential framework: RBI project finance directions and monitoring requirements influence reporting incentives.

Overall, in Indian project-financed SPVs, asset statement reporting is both a reflection of economic reality and a signaling tool. It communicates project execution quality, financial discipline, and risk to lenders, rating agencies, and regulators, making it a critical element in infrastructure finance decision-making.

Conclusion

Asset statement reporting in Indian project finance represents far more than compliance with accounting standards; it is a financial signal embedded within a highly leveraged and contract-driven environment. In project-financed SPVs, where lenders rely primarily on future cash flows rather than sponsor balance sheets, the asset side of the Statement of Financial Position becomes a critical indicator of execution discipline, capitalization integrity, and emerging risk. Movements in capital work-in-progress, capitalization of borrowing costs, transition to operational assets, and impairment recognition directly influence financial ratios, covenant compliance, and refinancing prospects. This study highlights that asset reporting outcomes are shaped by an interdependent set of drivers. Financial structure particularly leverage intensity and covenant design exerts measurable influence on capitalization timing and impairment sensitivity. The project lifecycle significantly alters asset composition, with construction-stage reporting dominated by CWIP and borrowing cost capitalization under Ind AS 23, while operational-stage reporting shifts toward depreciation and impairment considerations under Ind AS 16 and Ind AS 36. Managerial judgment, though guided by standards, plays a decisive role in determining useful lives, capitalization thresholds, and recoverability assumptions. Sectoral characteristics, governance quality, lender monitoring, and evolving prudential frameworks further reinforce the strategic and signaling dimension of asset reporting. In the Indian infrastructure context marked by implementation risk, regulatory complexity, and capital intensity asset statement reporting functions as both a reflection of economic substance and a communication mechanism between sponsors, lenders, auditors, and regulators. The asset base of a project SPV is therefore not merely an accumulation of capitalized costs; it is a structured representation of project progress, financial discipline, and risk allocation. Going forward, stronger governance practices, enhanced disclosure quality, and closer alignment between accounting judgments and underlying cash-flow realities will be essential to sustain lender confidence and market stability. Future empirical research may deepen this framework by examining sector-wise variations, covenant sensitivity analysis, and the relationship between asset reporting patterns and project distress outcomes. In sum, asset statement reporting in Indian project finance operates at the intersection of accounting, finance, and regulatory oversight making it a central pillar of financial transparency and credit assessment in infrastructure development.

References

[1] CareEdge Global. (2024). Project finance rating methodology. [2] CAREEdge Ratings. (2025). Criteria–Methodology: Infrastructure sector ratings. [3] CAREEdge Ratings. (2025). Rating methodology–Power transmission (services sector). [4] CRISIL Ratings. (2025, June 26). RBI project finance directions to strengthen guardrails for lenders [Press release]. [5] Department of Public Enterprises. (2022). Ind AS 36: Impairment of assets. Government of India. [6] Department of Public Enterprises. (2022, September 13). Ind AS 36 – Impairment of assets (presentation). Government of India. [7] Esty, B. C. (2004). Why study large projects? An introduction to research on project finance. European Financial Management, 10(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00251.x [8] Esty, B. C. (2004). Why study large projects? An introduction to research on project finance. European Financial Management, 10(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00251.x [9] Gatti, S. (2018). Project finance in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Academic Press. [10] Gatti, S. (2018). Project finance in theory and practice: Designing, structuring, and financing private and public projects (3rd ed.). Academic Press. [11] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (2023a). Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 16: Property, plant and equipment. ICAI. [12] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (2023b). Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 23: Borrowing costs. ICAI. [13] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (2023c). Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 36: Impairment of assets. ICAI. [14] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (2025). Educational material on Ind AS 23: Borrowing costs. ICAI. [15] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (2025, May 7). Release of educational material on Ind AS 23, borrowing costs (webpage). ICAI. [16] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (n.d.). Educational materials on Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) (resource page). ICAI. [17] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (n.d.). Ind AS 1: Presentation of financial statements (presentation). ICAI (BoS). [18] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (n.d.). Ind AS 16: Property, plant and equipment. ICAI. [19] Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [20] Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [21] Reserve Bank of India. (2025). Reserve Bank of India (Project Finance) Directions, 2025. RBI. [22] Reserve Bank of India. (2025, June 19). Reserve Bank of India (Project Finance) Directions, 2025 (RBI/2025-26/59). [23] Reuters. (2025, June 19). India\'s central bank eases provisioning rules for infrastructure loans. [24] Yescombe, E. R. (2014). Principles of project finance (2nd ed.). Academic Press. [25] Yescombe, E. R. (2014). Principles of project finance (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Sreedevi L, Dr. Nidhi Paridar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.