§ 01 — How To Read These
The test of a valuation is the review it faces.
Every valuation we sign is built for a specific reviewer — an investor's diligence team, an AD bank, a statutory auditor, a tax officer or a court. Each case below is a representative engagement: the facts are real in substance, but industries are generalised and identifying details removed. What we never soften is the scrutiny each report faced, because that is the only part that proves anything.
Representative Engagement · SaaS · Fundraising
A Series A SaaS company defended its valuation through three rounds of investor diligence — without a single methodology challenge.
Situation. A SaaS company heading into a Series A round needed an independent valuation that could sit beside the term sheet — one the founders could actually argue from, not just file.
What made it hard. Pre-profit, fast-growing revenue and no directly comparable listed peers. A conventional DCF would have been hostage to a handful of assumptions — exactly where diligence teams attack.
Our approach. We triangulated a scenario-weighted DCF against screened revenue multiples, documented every growth, churn and margin assumption with its source, and wrote the value narrative in the language the founders would face in the room.
FULL REPORT IN 12 DAYS · ZERO METHODOLOGY OBJECTIONS ACROSS THREE DILIGENCE ROUNDS
Representative Engagement · Manufacturing · FEMA
A mid-market manufacturer's cross-border share transfer valuation was accepted by the AD bank and statutory auditor on first submission.
Situation. A mid-market manufacturer was transferring shares to a non-resident buyer and needed a valuation compliant with FEMA pricing guidelines, on a deal timeline that had no room for resubmission.
What made it hard. Cyclical earnings and a heavy asset base meant income and asset views pointed in different directions — and two reviewers with different checklists, the AD bank and the statutory auditor, both had to clear the same report.
Our approach. We applied an internationally accepted pricing methodology, reconciled the income and asset approaches with the reasoning stated rather than implied, and cited the regulatory basis for each requirement so neither reviewer had to ask.
FIRST-PASS ACCEPTANCE BY AD BANK AND STATUTORY AUDITOR · RBI/FEMA COMPLIANT
Representative Engagement · Fund · Fair Value
A VC fund moved its portfolio to an independent quarterly marks cycle — and resolved year-end auditor queries in a single round.
Situation. A venture fund had been marking its portfolio internally. LPs wanted independence; the auditor wanted consistency. The fund needed a standing external marks process, not a one-off opinion.
What made it hard. A mixed-stage portfolio with stale funding rounds, thin comparables for several companies, and the requirement that each quarter's marks be defensible against the last — movement had to be explained, not just reported.
Our approach. We built a consistent per-company framework, calibrated to the most recent round and rolled forward on documented performance, with a movement bridge each quarter showing exactly why marks changed.
INDEPENDENT QUARTERLY MARKS CYCLE · YEAR-END AUDITOR QUERIES CLOSED IN ONE ROUND
Representative Engagement · ESOP · Audit
A growth-stage company's ESOP fair value under Ind AS 102 was accepted by a Big Four statutory auditor without revision.
Situation. A growth-stage company granting options needed a fair value measurement under Ind AS 102 that its Big Four statutory auditor would sign off — with the share-based payment expense flowing straight into audited financials.
What made it hard. Option-pricing inputs for an unlisted company — volatility, expected life, the underlying equity value itself — are precisely where Big Four review teams probe hardest, and any revision would have reopened the expense number.
Our approach. We built the option-pricing model input by input: a documented peer set for volatility, expected life reasoned from the actual vesting and exercise pattern, and the underlying equity value triangulated rather than asserted. Each input carried its own working paper.
ACCEPTED BY BIG FOUR STATUTORY AUDITOR · NO REVISIONS · IND AS 102 COMPLIANT
Representative Engagement · Dispute · Expert Opinion
In a shareholder dispute, the valuation withstood opposing-expert challenge on both method selection and discount rates.
Situation. A shareholder dispute required an expert valuation opinion — one that would be read line by line by an opposing expert whose job was to break it.
What made it hard. In a dispute, the challenge is rarely arithmetic. It is why this method and not that one, and why this discount rate — the two fronts on which the opposing expert attacked.
Our approach. We reasoned the method selection in writing before applying it — stating which approaches were considered, rejected and why — and built the discount rate bottom-up with every premium sourced to evidence. The report was written to be cross-examined, because it would be.
WITHSTOOD OPPOSING-EXPERT CHALLENGE ON METHOD SELECTION AND DISCOUNT RATES
A note on what you will not find here: client names, rupee figures or precise valuation outcomes. Confidentiality is part of the engagement, and we extend to past clients the same discretion we would extend to you. If a pattern above matches your situation, we are happy to walk through the mechanics on a call.