Complete Financials Results for year ended 31 March, 2026.
RESULTS
▼ Concern Flagged
HIGH RISK
📅 Filed on BSE: 13 Jun 2026, 11:11 AM IST · BSE ID: cf247e2b-790b-4fc0-bc5b-79eb51998077
View Original BSE Filing (PDF)
💡
In Simple Terms
Auditors flagged multiple issues with the company's annual financial report for the year ended March 31, 2026, including related-party deals and accounting practices.
🤖 AI Summary
- Sparkle Gold Rock Limited's FY26 financial statements received a Qualified Opinion from its auditors.
- Auditors could not determine Arm’s Length Price for related-party sales of Rs.1971.40 lakhs and purchases of Rs.3308.16 lakhs.
- Company did not obtain mandatory prior approvals for certain related-party transactions under Section 188 of Companies Act, 2013.
- Non-compliance with MSMED Act, 2006, included not identifying MSME vendors and not providing for penal interest on delayed payments.
- Company did not calculate or recognize Expected Credit Loss (ECL) on outstanding trade receivables of Rs.5459.92 lakhs.
🔢 Key Numbers — exact figures from BSE filing, not rounded
Related Party Sales (not Arm’s Length ascertainable)
Rs.1971.40 lakhs
Related Party Purchases (not Arm’s Length ascertainable)
Rs.3308.16 lakhs
Trade Receivables without ECL provision
Rs.5459.92 lakhs
ITC reversal liability recorded
Rs. 46.22 lakh
🏢 How This Affects the Company
The inability to ascertain the exact effect of audit qualifications on financial statements implies that reported profit/loss, assets, liabilities, taxation provisions, and shareholder’s funds may be affected by unquantified amounts.
The company faces increased regulatory and financial risks due to non-compliance with Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013, regarding related-party transactions, and the MSMED Act, 2006, for vendor payments. Potential unrecorded liabilities for penal interest and ITC reversal interest also pose financial risk.
👥 What This Means For Shareholders
✅
Action Required
Shareholders should review the audit qualifications detailed in the financial results to understand the potential implications on the company's financial standing.
👤
Who Is Affected
All shareholders are affected as the audit qualifications highlight potential inaccuracies or unquantified liabilities that could impact the reported financial performance and position of Sparkle Gold Rock Limited.
🔍
Management Signal
Management believes there is no financial impact from the flagged issues, stating transactions were at arm's length or will be ratified, and that receivables are recoverable.
For information only. Not investment advice. ForgeUp is not SEBI-registered.
👁 Watch List — track these upcoming events
Next Board Meeting — observe if company addresses audit qualification issues.
Q1 FY27 results — monitor for improved disclosures on related party transactions.
Future audit reports — check for resolution or quantification of current qualifications.
HIGH RISK
Multiple unquantified audit qualifications regarding significant transactions and regulatory non-compliance.
💡 Investor Takeaway
Sparkle Gold Rock Limited's FY26 financials received a Qualified Opinion, with auditors unable to quantify impacts of related-party transactions (sales Rs.1971.40 lakhs, purchases Rs.3308.16 lakhs), non-compliance with Section 188, MSMED Act, and non-provision for ECL on Rs.5459.92 lakhs trade receivables.
⚖️ Strengths & Concerns
⚠️ Concerns
- Auditors could not determine Arm’s Length Price for related-party transactions amounting to Rs.1971.40 lakhs (sales) and Rs.3308.16 lakhs (purchases).
- Company did not provide for Expected Credit Loss (ECL) on outstanding trade receivables of Rs.5459.92 lakhs as required by Ind AS 109.
📅 Company Track Record
Sparkle Gold Rock Limited was formerly known as Sree Jayalakshmi Autospin Limited. No previous financial filings were found for this company under its current name to establish a historical performance trend.
Based on publicly available historical data. For context only.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Sparkle Gold Rock Limited receive a Qualified Opinion on its FY26 financial results?
The auditors issued a Qualified Opinion due to unquantifiable impacts of related-party transactions, non-compliance with Section 188 of the Companies Act, MSMED Act provisions, and the absence of Expected Credit Loss provision on trade receivables of Rs.5459.92 lakhs.
What were the significant related-party transactions flagged by the auditors for Sparkle Gold Rock Limited?
Auditors noted significant related-party sale transactions of Rs.1971.40 lakhs and purchase transactions of Rs.3308.16 lakhs with Sparkle Gold Mine Private Limited, where the Arm’s Length Price could not be determined.
What non-compliance issues did Sparkle Gold Rock Limited have regarding the MSMED Act, 2006?
The company did not implement procedures to identify and bifurcate MSME vendors and did not compute or provide for mandatory penal compounding interest on delayed payments to suppliers as required by the MSMED Act, 2006.
What was the issue with Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal for Sparkle Gold Rock Limited?
The company recorded an ITC reversal liability of Rs. 46.22 lakh but did not provide for interest on these liabilities, which the auditors state would affect financial statements.
Did Sparkle Gold Rock Limited provide for Expected Credit Loss (ECL) on its trade receivables?
No, the company did not calculate or recognize the provision for Expected Credit Loss (ECL) on its outstanding trade receivables of Rs.5459.92 lakhs as required by Ind AS 109.
Questions based on this BSE filing only. For information purposes.