Ind AS 32 establishes principles for presenting financial instruments as liabilities or equity and for offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities. It is one of three standards that together govern financial instruments under Ind AS — Ind AS 32 (presentation), Ind AS 109 (recognition and measurement), and Ind AS 107 (disclosures). The central question Ind AS 32 answers is deceptively important: is a particular instrument a liability or equity of the issuer? The answer affects gearing, the classification of returns (interest versus dividends), and a range of ratios — and it turns on substance, not legal form. There is no direct equivalent in the AS framework, which makes financial-instrument presentation a distinctive area of Ind AS.
Objective and scope
The objective is to establish principles for presenting financial instruments as liabilities or equity and for offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities. It applies to the classification of financial instruments, from the perspective of the issuer, into financial assets, financial liabilities, and equity instruments; the classification of related interest, dividends, losses, and gains; and the circumstances in which financial assets and financial liabilities should be offset. It is applied together with Ind AS 109 and Ind AS 107.
Financial instrument, financial liability, and equity
A financial instrument is any contract that gives rise to a financial asset of one entity and a financial liability or equity instrument of another entity.
A financial liability is, in essence, a contractual obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset to another entity, or to exchange financial assets or financial liabilities under conditions that are potentially unfavourable to the entity; or certain contracts that will or may be settled in the entity's own equity instruments under specified conditions.
An equity instrument is any contract that evidences a residual interest in the assets of an entity after deducting all of its liabilities.
The liability-versus-equity distinction
The heart of Ind AS 32 is classifying an instrument, or its component parts, as a financial liability or equity according to the substance of the contractual arrangement and the definitions above, rather than according to its legal form. The critical feature is whether the issuer has a contractual obligation to deliver cash or another financial asset (a liability) or not (equity). For example:
Redeemable preference shares that require the issuer to redeem them for a fixed amount at a fixed date create a contractual obligation to deliver cash — so, despite being called "shares", they are classified as a financial liability, and the "dividends" on them are presented as interest expense in profit or loss.
Irredeemable shares where any distribution is at the issuer's discretion generally represent equity, because there is no contractual obligation to deliver cash.
This substance-over-form classification can produce results that differ from how instruments are treated under company law or the AS framework — a preference share may be equity legally but a liability for accounting purposes under Ind AS 32.
Compound financial instruments
A compound financial instrument is a non-derivative financial instrument that contains both a liability and an equity component from the issuer's perspective — the classic example being a convertible bond (a bond that the holder can convert into a fixed number of the issuer's equity shares). Ind AS 32 requires the issuer to split such an instrument into its components: the liability component (the obligation to pay interest and principal) is measured first, at the fair value of a similar liability without the conversion feature, and the equity component (the conversion option) is the residual — the difference between the fair value of the whole instrument and the liability component. The two components are then presented separately as liability and equity. This "split accounting" for compound instruments is a signature feature of Ind AS 32.
Treasury shares, interest, dividends, and offsetting
Treasury shares — an entity's own equity instruments reacquired by it — are deducted from equity; no gain or loss is recognised in profit or loss on the purchase, sale, issue, or cancellation of an entity's own equity instruments.
Interest, dividends, losses, and gains relating to a financial instrument classified as a financial liability are recognised as income or expense in profit or loss, whereas distributions to holders of an equity instrument are recognised directly in equity. So the classification of the instrument drives whether its returns hit profit or loss or equity.
Offsetting: a financial asset and a financial liability are offset, and the net amount presented in the balance sheet, when, and only when, an entity currently has a legally enforceable right to set off the recognised amounts and intends either to settle on a net basis or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously. Offsetting is otherwise not permitted.
A brief illustration
A company issues a convertible bond for ₹100 lakh — a compound instrument. To account for it under Ind AS 32, the company first measures the liability component as the fair value of a similar non-convertible bond (say ₹88 lakh, using a market interest rate for such debt), and the equity component (the conversion option) is the residual ₹12 lakh. The ₹88 lakh is presented as a financial liability and the ₹12 lakh as equity. Interest on the liability component is expensed in profit or loss. Separately, the company has redeemable preference shares that must be redeemed for cash in five years — under Ind AS 32 these are a financial liability (not equity), and their "dividends" are presented as interest expense. Under the AS framework, none of this liability/equity split analysis is applied in the same way — the instruments would generally follow their legal form.
Why there is no direct AS equivalent
The AS framework does not have a dedicated financial-instruments presentation standard equivalent to Ind AS 32 (the corresponding AS-framework standards, AS 30, 31, and 32 on financial instruments, were withdrawn and never made mandatory). As a result, under the AS framework, instruments such as preference shares and convertible debentures are generally presented largely in accordance with their legal form and the requirements of the Companies Act, rather than being reclassified between liability and equity on a substance basis, and compound instruments are not split in the Ind AS 32 manner. This is one of the more significant conceptual gaps between the frameworks: Ind AS 32 (with Ind AS 109 and 107) introduces a comprehensive, substance-driven regime for financial instruments that simply does not exist in the same form under AS.
Common pitfalls
Recurring issues include classifying an instrument by its legal form rather than its substance (for example, treating mandatorily redeemable preference shares as equity); failing to split a compound instrument such as a convertible bond into liability and equity components; presenting distributions on liability-classified instruments as dividends in equity rather than as interest in profit or loss; recognising gains or losses on transactions in an entity's own equity instruments; and offsetting financial assets and liabilities without a legally enforceable right and the intention to settle net.
Why this is cleaner on a unified system
Classifying and presenting financial instruments correctly — splitting compound instruments, routing their returns to profit or loss or equity, and applying offsetting rules — depends on capturing the terms of each instrument reliably and reflecting them consistently in the accounts. When the records of instruments issued (their terms, conversion features, and redemption obligations) and the ledger sit in one connected system, applying the substance-based classification and presenting liability and equity components and their returns correctly is more straightforward than reconciling instrument registers against accounts held in separate tools.
This article is a detailed educational summary of Ind AS 32 in plain language. It is not a substitute for the full text of the standard. Accounting standards are amended from time to time; always verify the current, authoritative text of Ind AS 32 as notified under the Companies Act before relying on it, and consult a qualified chartered accountant for application to your specific circumstances.