Worked Solution
✓ VerifiedAnalysis of Related Party Classification under Ind AS 24:
Definition of Related Party: According to Ind AS 24 (Related Party Disclosures), a related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity preparing financial statements. Related parties include: (a) entities under common control or significant influence; (b) associates and joint ventures; (c) key management personnel and their close family members; (d) entities controlled by KMP or their family; and (e) post-employment benefit plans.
Assessment of Sasha Ltd.: In this case, Sasha Ltd. is merely the only customer of Asha Ltd., purchasing all manufactured furniture worth ₹1,00,00,000. The mere fact that Sasha Ltd. is a major or sole customer does not automatically make it a related party. The question does not indicate any of the following:
- Ownership or control relationship between Asha Ltd. and Sasha Ltd.
- Significant influence by Sasha Ltd. over Asha Ltd.
- Common management or key personnel relationship.
- Any ownership linkage, directorate overlap, or control through shareholding.
Conclusion: Sasha Ltd. cannot be presented as a related party in the financial statements of Asha Ltd. solely on the basis of being the only customer. Presenting it as such would be incorrect and non-compliant with Ind AS 24.
Disclosure Requirement: While Sasha Ltd. is not a related party and related party disclosures under Ind AS 24 would not apply, Asha Ltd. should consider the following: (1) Concentration of revenue risk: The fact that 100% of sales are to a single customer represents significant concentration risk that may require disclosure in the financial statements as important information under general disclosure requirements. (2) Voluntary disclosure: Under the principle of fair presentation, entities may voluntarily disclose information about major customers or revenue concentration in notes to financial statements, though this is not mandatory under Ind AS 24. (3) Segment reporting: If applicable, segment information may disclose customer concentration if the entity has reportable segments.
Recommendation: Asha Ltd. should not classify Sasha Ltd. as a related party, but may consider disclosing the revenue concentration as material information in the notes to financial statements to provide users with a complete understanding of the business and its risks.
Write it like this
1The skeleton
- Lead with the Ind AS 24 definition of 'related party' — list the qualifying criteria (common control, significant influence, KMP, etc.) upfront so the examiner knows you know the standard before you apply it.
- Explicitly test Sasha Ltd. against each criterion — go point by point and show none of the criteria are met; this is where marks live, not in the conclusion alone.
- State the conclusion in one crisp line: Sasha Ltd. is NOT a related party — use the exact language of the standard; examiners mark this line specifically.
- Pivot to what IS required: revenue concentration disclosure — this is the twist that separates average answers from scoring ones; acknowledging the 100% sales concentration shows you understand the spirit of disclosure beyond just Ind AS 24.
- Close with the 'why not Ind AS 24' one-liner — explicitly say related party disclosures under Ind AS 24 do NOT apply, so the examiner doesn't think you forgot to conclude.
2Examiner-rewarded phrases
3Common trap
Most students see '100% sales to one party' and instinctively treat it as a related party — don't fall for it. Economic dependence alone is never the test under Ind AS 24; the trap is skipping the criterion-by-criterion check and jumping straight to 'yes, related party', which flips your conclusion and kills the entire answer.