IBBI’s 2026 Valuation Framework Under the IBC: IVS, Documentation and the New Coordinating Valuer Discipline

India’s insolvency valuation framework has become materially more prescriptive in 2026. Two IBBI circulars issued on 1 April 2026 and 15 June 2026 now work together to create a tighter professional architecture for valuation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The first makes the International Valuation Standards (IVS), as issued and updated by the International Valuation Standards Council, the applicable valuation standards for valuations conducted under the Code. The second prescribes detailed Guidelines for Conducting Valuation Under the IBC, including documentation expectations, minimum report contents, receivables analysis, asset-specific reporting formats and the role of a Coordinating Valuer.

Why this matters

Valuation is not a side exercise in insolvency. Fair value and liquidation value influence how resolution applicants price plans, how the committee of creditors compares recoveries, how stakeholders assess value erosion, and how an adjudicating authority understands the economic context of a process. IBBI’s April circular expressly states that transparent, objective and credible valuation is fundamental to effective insolvency administration because valuation serves as a critical input for evaluating resolution plans and informed decision-making.

Applicable legal framework

Circular No. IBBI/RV/93/2026 dated 1 April 2026 notified the International Valuation Standards as the valuation standards applicable to valuations under the Code and regulations made thereunder, until further orders. The circular links this requirement to the amended valuation provisions across the CIRP Regulations, Liquidation Process Regulations, Voluntary Liquidation Process Regulations, Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations and the Bankruptcy Process Regulations for personal guarantors to corporate debtors. It applies to valuations conducted from the date of issue.

Circular No. IBBI/RV/103/2026 dated 15 June 2026 then operationalised the reporting side of the framework. IBBI specified that every registered valuer appointed under the Code must prepare valuation reports and maintain documentation in accordance with the new Guidelines. The circular states that the Guidelines apply to valuation conducted under the Code after 15 June 2026.

The practical shift: from a conclusion-driven report to an evidence-driven valuation file

The June Guidelines are important because they do not stop at requiring a final value. They require a documented trail showing how that value was reached. The valuer’s file must be capable of demonstrating the scope of work, work performed, inputs used, professional judgments exercised and the basis of conclusions. IBBI specifically expects records of client communications, working papers, supporting material, alternative methodologies considered, additional inputs evaluated, risks and potential biases identified, and valuation quality-control procedures applied.

For insolvency professionals and committees of creditors, this changes the quality of questions that should be asked. A valuation report that merely states a methodology and a final number may no longer be enough. The process file should be capable of explaining why a method was chosen, what alternatives were rejected, how material assumptions were tested and how valuation risk was managed.

Minimum report content is now significantly more structured

The prescribed minimum content is broad. Among other things, the report is expected to identify the purpose and scope of work; details and registration number of the registered valuer; experts involved; conflicts of interest; client and intended users; intended use; assets and liabilities being valued; valuation currency; Valuation Report Identification Number (VRIN); sources of information; basis and premise of value; valuation standards followed; approaches, methods or models used; discounts and premiums; significant inputs; inspections or investigations; sustainability and functional factors; special assumptions and limiting conditions; reasons for leaving an asset out or assigning zero value; expert findings; the value and valuation rationale; and applicable caveats, limitations and disclaimers.

This is especially relevant in contentious cases. If creditors, promoters, resolution applicants or liquidating stakeholders later challenge the value, the defensibility of the report will depend not only on the headline number but also on the quality of the underlying documentation and reasoning.

Receivables valuation gets special attention

IBBI has expressly identified parameters that should be considered while valuing receivables. These include the nature of the receivable; credit risk profile and related-party status; ageing; legal enforceability and supporting documentation; past recovery and servicing record; sector and macroeconomic conditions; and any other relevant factor. The Guidelines also point to whether a receivable is secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, and whether enforceable contracts, invoices, acknowledgements of debt and debtor KYC are available.

This is a commercially significant change in emphasis. In stressed companies, book receivables can form a large part of the balance sheet, but face value can be very different from recoverable value. Professionals should expect deeper scrutiny of ageing, counterparty solvency, disputes, documentation and historical recovery patterns rather than a mechanical discount to ledger balances.

The Coordinating Valuer concept

The Guidelines also create a clearer coordination discipline where multiple asset classes are being valued. Registered valuers are required to provide full assistance to the designated Coordinating Valuer, share inputs and clarifications on time, comply with applicable law and valuation standards, maintain supporting working papers, and ensure information and assumptions shared are true, correct, complete and free from material misstatement or omission. Part III of the Guidelines deals with the Coordinating Valuer’s role in determining the fair value of the corporate debtor.

For complex corporate debtors with land, plant and machinery, securities, financial assets, intangibles and operating businesses, this matters because inconsistent assumptions across different valuers can distort enterprise-level conclusions. A coordination layer should help surface contradictions in assumptions, dates, projections, liabilities and asset interdependencies before those inconsistencies reach the committee of creditors.

What resolution professionals should change now

First, appointment and engagement letters should clearly define scope, valuation date, asset class, information responsibilities and expected compliance with the notified IVS and IBBI Guidelines. Second, information shared with valuers should be version-controlled and traceable. Third, the RP should maintain an audit trail of responses to information requests and clarifications. Fourth, where a Coordinating Valuer is involved, timelines should be designed to allow reconciliation of cross-asset assumptions before values are finalised. Fifth, reports should be reviewed for completeness against the prescribed minimum content rather than only checked for signed fair-value and liquidation-value conclusions.

What committees of creditors and lenders should focus on

CoC members should treat valuation review as a governance exercise. Key questions include: What information was unavailable? Which assets were excluded or assigned zero value, and why? Which valuation assumptions are most sensitive? How were distressed-market conditions reflected? Were receivables independently assessed for enforceability and collectability? Are there related-party exposures? Are the assumptions used for different asset classes internally consistent? A properly documented valuation process gives creditors a better basis to challenge or understand large gaps between fair value, liquidation value and offered plan value.

Litigation and accountability implications

The 2026 framework does not eliminate valuation judgment; it makes that judgment more auditable. Where a valuation is later questioned before the NCLT, NCLAT, IBBI or another authority, documentation may become as important as the methodology itself. A valuer who can show the information received, alternative approaches considered, risks assessed, assumptions tested and quality controls performed is in a very different position from one whose working file cannot explain the final number.

The broader professional message

The direction of regulation is clear: insolvency valuation is moving toward standardisation, traceability and professional accountability. The April 2026 adoption of IVS provides a common standards base, while the June 2026 Guidelines prescribe the minimum evidence and reporting discipline expected in practice. For insolvency professionals, registered valuers, lenders and advisors, valuation should now be managed as a documented decision process rather than a one-time report procurement exercise.

Primary sources consulted

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Circular No. IBBI/RV/93/2026 dated 1 April 2026: Valuation Standards for the purpose of valuation conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Circular No. IBBI/RV/103/2026 dated 15 June 2026: Guidelines for Conducting Valuation Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Both are available in the Legal Framework > Circulars section of the official IBBI website.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general professional information and discussion. It does not constitute legal, valuation, insolvency or financial advice. The facts and regulatory position should be independently verified for the specific assignment and valuation date before acting.