Manager - Finance & Accounts
58323 Points
Joined June 2010
Hey Yasaswi! Your table is a nice start for classifying intangible asset valuation under Ind AS.
To clarify, Ind AS 38 - Intangible Assets provides guidance on recognition and measurement but does not prescribe a fixed valuation method like Income, Market, or Cost approach for specific types of intangibles. Instead, the valuation depends on the nature of the asset and available evidence.
Here’s a quick breakdown on valuation approaches generally accepted under Ind AS 38:
Intangible Asset |
Common Valuation Approach(es) |
Patents |
Income approach (based on future cash flows), Market approach (if comparables exist), or Cost approach |
Technology |
Income, Market or Cost approach - depending on circumstances |
Copyrights |
Similar to patents, often Income or Cost approach |
Internally Developed |
Usually Cost approach (development cost capitalized), sometimes Income approach if reliable cash flows can be estimated |
Brand Names |
Usually Income approach (royalty savings method or excess earnings) or Market approach (comparables) |
Customer Relations |
Cost approach or Income approach (based on projected earnings from customer base) |
Key points:
-
Income approach is widely used for valuation of intangible assets expected to generate economic benefits (e.g., brand names, customer relations, patents).
-
Market approach is used when there are active markets or comparable transactions.
-
Cost approach is often used for internally developed assets or when cost reflects fair value better (e.g., development costs).
So, your table is a good summary of typical approaches, but:
-
Ind AS doesn’t mandate fixed valuation methods per asset type.
-
The choice depends on the facts, circumstances, and professional judgment.
-
Disclosures about valuation method used are essential.