Project Finance Due Diligence India 2026: Cash Flow, DSCR, Cost Overrun & Lender Checklist
Project finance due diligence in India is a structured financial review of whether a project can be completed, funded and operated with enough resilient cash flow to service its debt under realistic assumptions. For lenders, promoters and transaction teams, the work should go beyond a headline DSCR: it should test project cost, sources and uses, construction progress, cost-overrun funding, debt drawdown, DCCO risk, operating assumptions, covenants and downside cash flows. A CA-led financial diligence review complements—but does not replace—technical, legal, environmental or lender credit appraisal.
Project Finance Due Diligence India: What the 2026 Review Should Cover
The regulatory backdrop has become more structured. The Reserve Bank of India issued the Reserve Bank of India (Project Finance) Directions, 2025 on 19 June 2025. The framework is relevant to regulated lenders and reinforces why project monitoring, commencement dates, financing structure and stress identification need disciplined evidence. A professional diligence exercise should therefore reconcile commercial assumptions to financing documents and actual project progress rather than treat the financial model as a standalone spreadsheet.
Recent public offer filings also show how sophisticated project-finance businesses describe appraisal in practice: promoter and sponsor assessment, contractual and regulatory review, techno-commercial feasibility, demand or offtake analysis, financial forecasting, credit-risk analysis, covenants and project monitoring. See the SEBI-filed EAAA India Alternatives DRHP and recent infrastructure/energy offer filings for market-practice context.
1. Rebuild the Project Cost and Sources-and-Uses Statement
The first diligence question is not whether the sanctioned project cost looks reasonable; it is whether every material cost line can be supported and whether the funding plan still closes. The review should reconcile the board-approved or lender-appraised cost with contracts, purchase orders, invoices, engineer certificates, land payments, statutory charges, interest during construction and contingency provisions.
Separate committed cost, incurred cost, paid cost and cost-to-complete.
Identify escalation, foreign-exchange exposure, taxes, duties and scope changes that were not fully captured in the original estimate.
Reconcile promoter equity, subordinated funding, grants, internal accruals and debt drawdowns to bank statements and ledgers.
Test whether undrawn debt plus committed equity is enough to fund the realistic cost-to-complete—not merely the sanctioned cost.
2. Test Construction Progress, DCCO and Cost-Overrun Risk
A project can appear adequately funded while still carrying a timing problem. Due diligence should compare physical progress with financial progress and with the scheduled date of commencement of commercial operations (DCCO). Delays in land, permits, equipment delivery, grid connectivity, customer approvals or contractor performance can shift interest during construction, working-capital needs and debt-service timing.
A useful CA-led review builds a delay bridge: original completion date → current expected completion date → incremental interest and overhead → additional funding requirement → revised cash-flow commencement. Any proposed extension or restructuring must be assessed under the applicable lender documentation and current regulatory framework; there is no universal “safe” delay period that should be assumed without checking the relevant facts and rules.
3. Re-perform Cash Flow and DSCR Under Downside Cases
DSCR is an output, not the diligence conclusion. The model should be re-performed using assumptions that can be independently challenged: utilization or capacity ramp-up, tariff or selling price, operating costs, maintenance capex, working capital, taxes, interest rates and repayment dates. A lender-specific minimum DSCR or covenant should come from the financing documents; it should not be replaced with a generic market threshold.
At minimum, test a base case and credible downside cases such as a six-month delay, lower utilization, price compression, raw-material inflation, interest-rate increase or higher maintenance capex. The key question is when liquidity becomes tight and what funding source is realistically available at that point.
For a deeper review of cash conversion, see PGT & Associates’ Cash Flow Quality in Financial Due Diligence. For debt classification and debt-like exposures in transactions, see Net Debt in Financial Due Diligence.
4. Examine Revenue, Offtake and Operating Assumptions
A project model can be mathematically correct and economically weak. Revenue assumptions should be traced to executed contracts, concession terms, power purchase agreements, customer commitments, order books or defensible market assumptions. Diligence should distinguish contracted revenue from management targets and identify termination rights, price-reset clauses, minimum-volume conditions, penalties and concentration risk.
Operating costs need the same discipline. Compare modelled costs with supplier contracts, historical benchmarks, inflation clauses and technical estimates. If a project depends on a single feedstock, customer, concession authority or operating contractor, that dependency should be visible in the financial sensitivity—not buried in narrative disclosures.
5. Review Debt Drawdown, Security, Covenants and Conditions Precedent
The financing file should be converted into a control matrix. For each facility, capture sanctioned amount, availability period, drawdown conditions, repayment schedule, interest benchmark, security, guarantees, escrow or waterfall terms, reserve requirements, financial covenants, information covenants and events of default. Then compare the legal schedule with actual accounting and banking records.
Are all conditions precedent actually satisfied or formally waived?
Has debt been used for the permitted project purpose?
Do security and charge records reconcile with financing documents?
Are sponsor support, cost-overrun undertakings or guarantees still enforceable and financially credible?
Are covenant calculations reproducible from audited or controlled financial information?
6. Project Finance Due Diligence Checklist for CFOs and Lenders
Latest project appraisal note, sanction letters and all amendments.
Detailed project cost with committed/incurred/paid/cost-to-complete bridge.
Sources-and-uses reconciliation and promoter contribution evidence.
Independent engineer or technical progress reports and milestone certificates.
Updated implementation schedule and DCCO bridge.
Financial model with assumption book, debt schedule and tax workings.
Executed customer/offtake and major supplier/EPC/O&M contracts.
Facility agreements, security documents, guarantees and covenant certificates.
Bank statements, debt drawdown trail and escrow/waterfall statements.
Permissions, litigation and contingent liabilities that may affect completion or cash flow.
Downside sensitivities and management’s documented mitigation plan.
Illustrative Mini-Case: Why Headline DSCR Can Mislead
Assume a project was originally budgeted at ₹600 crore, funded by ₹180 crore of promoter equity and ₹420 crore of debt, with commercial operations expected in March 2027. At diligence date, ₹470 crore has been incurred, but a contractor variation and six-month delay increase the estimated final cost to ₹660 crore. Interest during the extended construction period adds further pressure.
The original model may still show an acceptable average DSCR because it starts revenue on the old date and ignores the extra ₹60 crore cost. A diligence rebuild would instead ask: who funds the overrun, when is that funding available, does debt service begin before stable operations, and what happens if utilization ramps more slowly? The transaction or lending decision should be based on the revised cash-flow path, not the original sanction model.
Common Red Flags in Project Finance Financial Due Diligence
Physical completion materially trails percentage of project cost spent.
Promoter contribution is booked but not supported by clean funding evidence.
Large advances to contractors or related parties without milestone support.
Cost-to-complete excludes escalation, IDC, taxes or scope variations.
Revenue forecast assumes full utilization immediately after commissioning.
DSCR is shown only as an average and hides weak individual repayment periods.
Repeated covenant waivers or undocumented lender consents.
Project cash flows depend on refinancing rather than operating cash generation.
Working-capital requirements are materially lower than comparable operating periods or contracts suggest.
Model assumptions differ from the latest technical report, board plan or financing documents.
Where a CA-Led Review Adds Value—and Where It Stops
A chartered-accountancy or transaction-advisory team can add value by rebuilding financial information, reconciling project cost and funding, testing model integrity, reviewing debt schedules and covenant calculations, normalizing assumptions, tracing cash flows and identifying accounting, tax and financial-control red flags. It should coordinate closely with technical, legal and environmental specialists where their conclusions affect financial viability.
The financial diligence report should clearly separate verified facts, management representations, third-party technical conclusions and professional judgement. It should not imply that a financial adviser has independently certified engineering feasibility, legal title, environmental compliance or lender approval unless specifically qualified and engaged to do so.
PGT’s broader transaction diligence framework is covered in Quality of Earnings in Financial Due Diligence, which can be used alongside this project-specific review when an acquisition, refinancing or capital raise involves an operating business plus project assets.
FAQs
What is project finance due diligence?
It is the independent review of project cost, funding, completion status, cash-flow assumptions, debt servicing, contractual economics and financial risks before or during lending, investment, refinancing or a transaction.
Is DSCR enough to assess project viability?
No. DSCR is useful, but its reliability depends on revenue, operating-cost, timing, interest and repayment assumptions. Diligence should re-perform the cash-flow model and examine weak periods and downside cases, not only the average ratio.
Does financial due diligence replace technical due diligence?
No. Financial diligence should use and challenge the financial consequences of technical findings, but engineering progress, design, capacity and technical feasibility normally require appropriately qualified technical specialists.
What is the RBI framework relevant to project finance in 2026?
RBI issued the Reserve Bank of India (Project Finance) Directions, 2025 on 19 June 2025. Applicable requirements depend on the regulated entity and facts of the financing, so transaction teams should verify the current Directions and lender documentation rather than rely on generic thresholds.
Practical Takeaway
Strong project finance due diligence converts a large financial model and document set into a small number of decision-critical questions: Is the project genuinely funded to completion? Is the expected completion date credible? Are operating cash flows supported by contracts and evidence? Can debt be serviced through downside periods? Are cost overruns, covenants and sponsor obligations visible and funded? If those answers are not reconciled across finance, technical progress and legal documents, the model is not yet decision-ready.
PGT & Associates can support promoters, CFOs, lenders and transaction teams with CA-led financial due diligence, project-cost and cash-flow reconciliation, model review, covenant analysis and transaction-readiness support. Engagement scope should be defined for the specific transaction; no financing, approval or project outcome is guaranteed.
Comments