Impact of IFRS on the Financial Statements of Select IT Companies in India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization of economies and shift in financial environment from the traditional bank based one to a market based one necessitated a uniform financial reporting language across countries to facilitate comparisons. This resulted in the establishment of International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) which issued International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), a global standard for company financial statements. More than 120 countries, including European Union, Australia, Canada have already adopted IFRS. India was expected to converge with IFRS from April 2016 for listed and unlisted companies with a net worth of more than ` 500 crores. However, few Indian companies listed internationally are voluntarily reporting IFRS. The present study aimed to understand the effect of this voluntary reporting of IFRS on key financial ratios of four selected IT sector companies. The study compared 12 major financial ratios under IFRS and Indian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (IGAAP) as reported in their financial statements for a period of 5years from 2009-10 to 2013-14. For the purpose of the study, financial ratios representing four key dimensions of companies namely liquidity, leverage, profitability, and efficiency were considered. To understand the statistical significance of the difference between the ratios, Wilcoxon signed rank test, a non parametric test was used. Of the 12 ratios analyzed, 10 were found to be statistically significant. Further, the study explained the financial statement items which cause the difference in the ratios of these companies. The results indicated current liability and shareholder's equity to be significant at the 10% level, thus explaining the difference in financial statement items under IFRS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it