SKIL Infrastructure: Reported Q3 FY26 Profit Under CIRP, With Audit Qualifications

SKIL Infrastructure Limited remains in a complex phase. The company is under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process that started after the NCLT Mumbai order dated February 1, 2024. For investors tracking listed companies under insolvency, the latest update is less about business momentum and more about process, disclosures, and what the reported numbers can and cannot be assumed to mean.

On September 15, 2026, the Resolution Professional committee meeting, held in lieu of the suspended board, took on record the unaudited standalone and consolidated financial results for the quarter ended December 31, 2025. Statutory auditor AMS and Co LLP issued limited review reports for both sets of results, with a qualified conclusion and multiple emphasis areas. The meeting ran from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM, and the filing was made under Regulation 30 and Regulation 33 of SEBI LODR.

From a pure profit and loss perspective, the consolidated statement shows other income of ₹192.79 lakh in the quarter ended December 31, 2025 and total expenses of ₹18.35 lakh, resulting in profit after tax attributable to owners of ₹174.44 lakh for the quarter. For the nine months ended December 31, 2025, other income totals ₹4,748.93 lakh and consolidated profit attributable to owners is ₹4,647.71 lakh. There is no revenue from operations reported in the consolidated table, so the reported profitability is driven by other income and low operating cost lines.

But SKIL’s story in this period is not just the quarterly profit. It is about credibility of balances during CIRP, the unresolved claims position, limitations on audit procedures, and the continuing uncertainty on going concern.

CIRP timeline and why the filing matters

The company’s CIRP began after the NCLT admitted a Section 7 application on February 1, 2024 and appointed Purusottam Behera as Interim Resolution Professional. An appeal in Bhavesh Gandhi vs. Amuckie Investment Company Ltd led to an NCLAT interim order dated February 12, 2024 that stayed constitution of the Committee of Creditors.

That procedural overhang stayed in place until October 15, 2025, when the NCLAT vacated the stay and allowed withdrawal of the appeal. With the stay lifted, the CoC was constituted and approved, and in the first CoC meeting held on November 3, 2025, members approved appointment of Mr. Behera as Resolution Professional.

For investors, this sequence matters because it explains the delayed normalization of CIRP governance. Financial reporting during insolvency depends heavily on information access, support from existing staff, and the ability of the RP to reconcile creditor claims with book liabilities. The notes and the auditor’s report both point to that gap as a key source of uncertainty.

What the numbers show and what they do not

In the consolidated results for the quarter ended December 31, 2025, SKIL reports total revenue of ₹192.79 lakh, entirely from other income. Total expenses are ₹18.35 lakh, including employee benefit expenses of ₹8.64 lakh and provision for CIRP cost of ₹7.65 lakh. The company reports profit before tax of ₹174.44 lakh and profit for the period attributable to owners of the company of ₹174.44 lakh. EPS for the quarter is ₹0.08.

For the nine months ended December 31, 2025, consolidated other income is ₹4,748.93 lakh and total expenses are ₹101.23 lakh, leading to profit before tax and profit attributable to owners of ₹4,647.71 lakh. Nine-month EPS is ₹2.15.

The prior-year comparatives in the consolidated table highlight the unusual volatility in earlier numbers. For the nine months ended December 31, 2024, consolidated loss before tax is ₹2,60,445.26 lakh, and loss attributable to owners is ₹2,60,496.17 lakh. Year ended March 31, 2025 shows loss attributable to owners of ₹2,59,684.19 lakh. These numbers are disclosed in the statement as presented and underscore that the current period profits sit on top of a balance sheet and equity position that has already absorbed large hits.

In the standalone statement, the quarter reports total revenue of ₹192.79 lakh, again driven by other income, with total expenses shown as ₹17.22 lakh and profit for the period of ₹175.58 lakh. Nine months ended December 31, 2025 shows revenue of ₹4,748.93 lakh, expenses of ₹49.03 lakh, and profit for the period of ₹4,649.90 lakh. Standalone EPS for the quarter is ₹0.08 and for nine months is ₹2.15. The standalone table also shows other equity of negative ₹2,62,438.32 lakh.

The central investor takeaway is that profitability in this quarter is not supported by operating revenue. The consolidated statement reports revenue from operations as nil. That does not invalidate the reported profits, but it changes the interpretation. It puts scrutiny on the nature and sustainability of other income and on the quality of balance sheet items that may be remeasured or reversed during CIRP.

Notes: Figures are as presented in the unaudited consolidated financial results for the period ended December 31, 2025. Revenue is presented as nil from operations and the reported profit is driven by other income.

Audit qualifications: the real risk signal

AMS and Co LLP issued limited review reports with a basis of qualified conclusion. The themes are consistent across consolidated and standalone reviews and they directly affect how investors should treat the reported numbers.

Claims versus books during CIRP is the first and most important qualification. The auditors highlight that claims including corporate guarantees invoked and to be admitted by the IRP or RP may differ from the liabilities recorded in the books. No adjustments have been made for differential amounts pending final outcome of CIRP. That means the reported liabilities may not match the eventual admitted claims base. In insolvency, that gap can materially change net worth and future distributions.

Going concern uncertainty is also called out. The consolidated report points to Note 8 related to capital reduction in Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd and impairment, and states that these events and conditions indicate a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Still, the financial results are prepared on a going concern basis as disclosed in the notes.

Scope limitations on bank balances are another red flag. The auditors state that complete bank statements and direct confirmations for certain bank accounts were not available. As a result, review procedures on cash and bank balances were restricted and sufficient appropriate evidence could not be obtained. They note that possible effects of undetected misstatements could be material.

Consolidation and deconsolidation judgments add another layer of uncertainty on group reporting. The consolidated qualified conclusion mentions that the group had deconsolidated SKIL Shipyard Holdings Pvt Ltd in the previous year due to loss of control, but the deconsolidation was not carried out on the exact date on which control was lost as required under Ind AS 110. It also references derecognition of an unrecognized balance of ₹9 lakh without adequate supporting documentation. The auditors state they cannot determine the impact on the consolidated financial statements.

There is also a specific issue in consolidated reporting regarding intercompany loan differences with the subsidiary SKIL Advanced Systems Pvt Ltd. The report states an unrecognized difference of approximately ₹16.19 lakh exists in the intercompany loan balances, adjusted through reserves and surplus. The auditors note that if accounted, loss and liabilities would have increased by that amount.

In short, the reported profitability has to be read alongside the statement that core balance sheet items may change as claims are admitted, and that cash and bank procedures were restricted. For investors, the audit report is not a footnote. It is the lens.

Capital reduction, impairments, and other income sensitivity

The notes and emphasis paragraphs point to corporate actions and accounting treatments that can shape other income and equity movements.

A major event discussed is the capital reduction in Urban Infrastructure Holdings Pvt Ltd. The standalone limited review includes an emphasis that the company received ₹16,003.34 lakh net of TDS of ₹408.38 lakh as consideration for capital reduction pursuant to NCLT approval. The standalone notes describe that the company had valued its investment in UIHPL at ₹317,850.15 lakh as deemed cost at first-time Ind AS adoption, and that the capital reduction resulted in a capital reduction loss of ₹305,434.50 lakh after receiving the ₹16,003.34 lakh consideration.

The disclosures also refer to the scale of reduction in UIHPL share capital and the impairment of investment. Investors should note that these are not operating earnings drivers. They are financial and structural items, and in stressed situations they can cause large swings in reported profit, loss, and equity.

Another item disclosed is the associate investment in Rosoboronscevic India Ltd or similar name as presented in the reports. The company had written off the carrying amount during FY 2022-23 due to a voluntary liquidation application. After the NCLAT rejected the liquidation application, the company reassessed and recognized the investment at a nominal value of ₹1. The auditors emphasize that based on the latest available financial statements of the associate, liabilities substantially exceed assets and future economic benefits are considered negligible.

There is also a disclosure of recovery of ₹8.21 lakh from the associate, recognized under other income.

The consolidated audit report includes an emphasis of matter that quoted investments have not been revalued to reflect mark-to-market gain or loss due to non-availability of fair value inputs, though the company expects the impact to be negligible due to relatively small value.

Together, these items reinforce that in SKIL’s current structure, other income is highly sensitive to reversals, recoveries, and accounting reassessments. That makes quarter-to-quarter comparability difficult for investors seeking operating indicators.

What investors can reasonably watch next

For a company under CIRP, the investor checklist is different. The immediate question is not growth, product pipeline, or market share. It is governance through the insolvency process, fidelity of disclosures, and the settlement of claims that will define the final balance sheet.

The notes state that the RP has signed the financial statements without prejudice and without guarantee on accuracy, adequacy, completeness, or reliability, relying on existing staff and KMPs. That is a clear signal of constraints under CIRP.

The financial results also show a continuing provision line for CIRP cost in the consolidated statement. For the quarter ended December 31, 2025 it is ₹7.65 lakh. For the nine months ended December 31, 2025 it is ₹10.84 lakh. This line is not large relative to nine-month other income, but it is part of the continuing cash and cost reality of insolvency.

The biggest practical catalyst will be progress on claim reconciliation, clarity on admitted liabilities versus book liabilities, and any resolution plan outcomes. Until that is visible, the current profits should be treated as accounting results within a process environment rather than as a signal of a stable operating turnaround.

Closing view: reported profits, but the story is still the process

SKIL Infrastructure’s quarter ended December 31, 2025 shows reported profit on both standalone and consolidated bases, driven by other income with low expense lines. But the limited review reports carry qualifications that go to the heart of financial statement reliability during CIRP: unresolved creditor claims versus book liabilities, limitations on bank confirmations, uncertainty around consolidation judgments, and explicit going concern material uncertainty.

For investors, the cleanest way to read this update is as a transparency milestone rather than a business milestone. The company has filed results and disclosures under SEBI regulations, and the governance structure under CIRP is now formalized with an approved CoC and RP appointment. The next phase that will matter most is not the quarterly profit figure, but whether the CIRP process produces a resolution that reconciles claims, stabilizes reporting, and provides a credible base for future financial statements.