Provisions vs Contingent Liabilities (Ind AS 37): The Decision Test
- A provision is recognised when an obligation is probable (>50% likely) and can be reliably estimated; a contingent liability is only disclosed in notes, never recognised on the balance sheet.
- The single most important question is whether an outflow of resources is "more likely than not" — if yes, provide; if possible but not probable, disclose; if remote, ignore.
- Getting this wrong distorts profits, misleads lenders, and can trigger audit qualifications — so the classification decision must be documented every reporting period.
If your company is facing a tax demand, a customer lawsuit, or a product warranty claim, you must decide: does this go on the balance sheet as a provision, or does it stay in the notes as a contingent liability? Ind AS 37 gives you a three-part test. Get it right and your financial statements reflect reality. Get it wrong and you either overstate liabilities (scaring lenders) or hide real risks (misleading investors). This article walks you through the exact test, a worked example with real numbers, and the mistakes that trip up most businesses.
What Ind AS 37 Actually Says
Ind AS 37 — Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets — applies to all companies that follow Indian Accounting Standards. It draws a sharp line between three categories:
- Provision: A liability of uncertain timing or amount. Recognised on the balance sheet.
- Contingent liability: A possible obligation that depends on a future event outside your control, OR a present obligation where outflow is not probable, OR where the amount cannot be reliably estimated. Disclosed in notes only — never on the balance sheet.
- Contingent asset: A possible asset. Only disclosed when inflow is virtually certain; never recognised until confirmed.
The standard is clear: you cannot choose between the two based on what makes your balance sheet look better. Classification follows the facts and your honest assessment of probability.
The Three-Part Recognition Test for a Provision
Recognise a provision if — and only if — all three conditions are met simultaneously:
- Present obligation: You have a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event.
- Probable outflow: It is more likely than not (i.e., probability exceeds 50%) that you will have to transfer economic benefits to settle the obligation.
- Reliable estimate: You can make a reliable estimate of the amount.
If even one condition fails, you do not recognise a provision. Instead, you check whether the matter is a contingent liability that needs disclosure.
The Decision Tree: Provision vs Contingent Liability vs Nothing
| Situation | Probability of Outflow | Reliable Estimate? | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable obligation (e.g., lost court case likely) | More than 50% | Yes | Recognise Provision on balance sheet |
| Possible obligation (e.g., appeal pending, outcome uncertain) | Less than 50% but not remote | Yes or No | Disclose as Contingent Liability in notes |
| Reliable estimate not possible even though probable | More than 50% | No | Disclose as Contingent Liability in notes |
| Remote possibility (e.g., frivolous claim, no legal basis) | Remote | N/A | No recognition, no disclosure needed |
Worked Example: GST Demand on a Trading Company
Suppose your company, Mehta Traders Pvt. Ltd., receives a GST show-cause notice on 1 October 2025 for alleged wrongful ITC claims. The disputed tax amount is ₹18,00,000, plus interest and penalty that the department estimates at ₹7,20,000, for a total demand of ₹25,20,000.
Your tax counsel reviews the matter and gives you the following assessment in writing:
- Probability of losing the case entirely: 65%
- Probability of a negotiated settlement at 40% of demand: 20%
- Probability of full relief: 15%
Step 1 — Is there a present obligation? Yes. The past event (ITC claim) has already occurred and the tax authority has raised a formal demand.
Step 2 — Is outflow probable? The probability of some outflow is 85% (65% + 20%). Even if you only consider the "lose entirely" scenario, 65% alone exceeds 50%. So yes, outflow is probable.
Step 3 — Can you reliably estimate? Yes. You use the expected-value approach (or best estimate) as required by Ind AS 37.
Calculation of the provision (best estimate / expected value):
- Full loss scenario: ₹25,20,000 × 65% = ₹16,38,000
- Settlement scenario: (₹25,20,000 × 40%) × 20% = ₹10,08,000 × 20% = ₹2,01,600
- Full relief: ₹0 × 15% = ₹0
- Total provision to recognise: ₹16,38,000 + ₹2,01,600 = ₹18,39,600
Mehta Traders recognises a provision of ₹18,39,600 in its FY 2025-26 balance sheet. The balance of the potential exposure (₹25,20,000 − ₹18,39,600 = ₹6,80,400) is disclosed as a contingent liability in the notes, since that portion represents the upper-end risk not captured in the best estimate.
If the tax counsel had said the probability of losing was only 30%, the entire ₹25,20,000 would be disclosed as a contingent liability — no balance sheet entry at all.
Constructive Obligations: The Hidden Trap
A legal obligation is obvious — a court order, a contract, a statute. A constructive obligation is subtler. It arises when your company's past practice or public statements create a valid expectation in third parties that you will honour a commitment — even without a signed contract.
Classic examples in Indian businesses:
- A retailer that has refunded defective goods for five years without a written policy has a constructive obligation to continue doing so.
- A company that publicly announces a restructuring plan — specifying affected employees, locations, and timelines — has a constructive obligation for the restructuring costs from the date of announcement.
- A manufacturer that voluntarily issues product recalls based on past behaviour has a constructive obligation even before the recall is formally announced.
Many small businesses miss these entirely. If you have a consistent pattern of behaviour that customers or employees rely on, assess whether a constructive obligation exists at every year-end.
Common Mistakes
1. Using "possible" and "probable" interchangeably
These words have precise meanings under Ind AS 37. "Probable" means more likely than not — above 50%. "Possible" means less than 50% but not remote. Mixing them up leads to either over-provisioning or under-disclosure. Always document your probability assessment in writing.
2. Not reassessing at every reporting date
A contingent liability can become a provision — and vice versa — as facts change. A court hearing that goes against you in December changes the probability. If you only assess at the start of a dispute and never revisit, your financial statements will be wrong.
3. Providing for the maximum possible loss instead of the best estimate
Ind AS 37 requires the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the obligation — not a worst-case figure. Recognising the maximum demand "to be safe" is not conservative accounting; it is a misstatement. Use expected values or the single most likely outcome, depending on whether you have a range of possible outcomes or a single most probable one.
4. Ignoring disclosure when no provision is recognised
If the probability of outflow is, say, 35%, no provision is recognised. But the matter is not remote — so it must be disclosed in the notes as a contingent liability, including the nature of the obligation and an estimate of financial impact. Many companies skip this disclosure entirely, creating a regulatory and audit risk.
5. Netting provisions against expected recoveries
If you expect an insurer or a third party to reimburse part of the settlement, Ind AS 37 says you recognise the reimbursement separately as an asset (only when receipt is virtually certain) — you cannot net it against the provision. Netting understates both the liability and the asset, distorting your balance sheet ratios.
Practical Tip: Document Everything
Auditors and the Income Tax department both scrutinise provisions. For each material provision or contingent liability, keep a written file with: the nature of the obligation, the probability assessment (with basis), the estimated amount and how it was calculated, and the date of assessment. If you use accounting software that links documents to journal entries — such as KyaTax Books — attach your counsel's letter directly to the provision entry so the trail is always intact.
Do it yourself in minutes — free to try, no login needed.
Open KyaTax Books →Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between a provision and a contingent liability?
A provision is recognised on the balance sheet because the obligation is probable (more than 50% likely) and can be reliably estimated. A contingent liability is only disclosed in the notes because the outflow is possible but not probable, or the amount cannot be reliably estimated.
Can a contingent liability become a provision later?
Yes. If new information — such as a court ruling or expert opinion — pushes the probability of outflow above 50% and you can now estimate the amount, you must recognise a provision at that point. Similarly, a provision can be reversed to a contingent liability if circumstances improve.
Is a contingent liability shown on the balance sheet?
No. A contingent liability is never shown on the face of the balance sheet. It is only disclosed in the notes to financial statements. Recognising it on the balance sheet would be incorrect under Ind AS 37.
How do I estimate the provision amount when the outcome is uncertain?
Ind AS 37 requires the "best estimate" �� the amount you would rationally pay to settle the obligation today. For a single most-likely outcome, use that figure. For a range of outcomes, use the expected value (probability-weighted average), as shown in the GST demand example in this article. Do not use the worst-case figure unless that is genuinely the most likely outcome.
General information for FY 2026-27, not professional advice for your specific case. Rules change — verify against the latest notification or ask a KyaTax expert.
Related: All free tools · More guides · Virtual CFO