DLF Limited

Regd. Office: Shopping Mall 3rd Floor, Arjun Marg, Phase I DLF City, Gurgaon - 122 022 (Haryana)
STATEMENT OF AUDITED STANDALONE FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE QUARTER AND YEA
R ENDED MARCH 31, 2016 (` in crores)
SL NO. PARTICULARS YEAR ENDED
31.03.2016 31.03.2015
(Audited) (Audited)
1 Income from operations
Sales and other receipts 2,451.34 3,016.69
2 Expenses
a) Cost of land, plots, development rights, constructed
1,202.24 874.71
properties and others
b) Employee benefits expense 87.19 107.58
c) Depreciation, amortisation and impairment 74.74 55.82
d) Other expenses 375.50 399.08
Total Expenses 1,739.67 1,437.19
3 Profit/(Loss) from operations before other income, finance
costs and exceptional item ( 1-2 ) 711.67 1,579.50
4 Other income 1,121.25 1,045.19
5 Profit/(Loss) from ordinary activities before finance costs
and exceptional item ( 3+4 ) 1,832.92 2,624.69
6 Finance costs 1,377.50 1,403.34
7 Profit/(Loss) from ordinary activities after finance costs but
before exceptional item and tax ( 5-6 ) 455.42 1,221.35
8 Exceptional item 513.48 (29.49)
9 Profit/(Loss) from ordinary activities before tax ( 7+8 ) 968.90 1,191.86
10 Tax expense ** (8.68) 278.11
11 Net Profit/(Loss) from ordinary activities after tax but
before prior period item ( 9-10 ) 977.58 913.75
12 Prior period expense (net) 3.02 (26.32)
13 Net Profit/(Loss) for the period/year (11-12) 974.56 940.07
14 Paid up equity share capital (face value ` 2 each) Reserves 356.74 356.39
15 excluding revaluation reserves 17,493.33 16,870.50
16 Basic EPS (`) (on ` 2 per share) (not annualised) 5.47 5.28
17 Diluted EPS (`) (on ` 2 per share) (not annualised) 5.46 5.27
 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities:
(` in c

Particulars As on As on
March 31, 2016 March 31, 2015
A. Equity and Liabilities (Audited) (Audited)
1. Shareholders’ funds
(a) Share capital 356.74 356.39
(b) Reserves and surplus 17,493.33 16,873.00
Sub-total - Shareholders' funds 17,850.07 17,229.39
2. Share application money pending allotment 0.00 -
3. Non-current liabilities
(a) Long-term borrowings 6,385.71 8,096.35
(b) Deferred tax liabilities (net) - 91.49
(c) Other long-term liabilities 1,004.42 941.36
(d) Long-term provisions 17.64 16.63
Sub-total - Non-current liabilities 7,407.77 9,145.83
4. Current liabilities
(a) Short-term borrowings 2,033.77 2,499.65
(b) Trade payables 563.06 548.22
(c ) Other current liabilities 5,823.68 5,996.37
(d) Short-term provisions 11.43 565.40
Sub-total - Current liabilities 8,431.94 9,609.64
Total – Equity and Liabilities 33,689.78 35,984.86
B. Assets
1. Non-current assets
(a) Fixed assets 4,099.41 4,095.96
(b ) Non-current investments* 3,618.06 7,476.30
(c ) Deferred tax assets (net) 1.66 -
(d) Long-term loans and advances 5,438.41 3,389.98
Sub-total - Non-current assets 13,157.54 14,962.24
2 Current assets
(a) Inventories 8,111.72 7,508.55
(b) Trade receivables 267.04 212.13
(c) Cash and cash equivalents 1,047.65 953.94
(d) Short-term loans and advances 2,121.58 1,973.22
(e) Other current assets 8,984.25 10,374.78
Sub-total - Current assets 20,532.24 21,022.62
Total – Assets 33,689.78 35,984.86
* During the current financial year, the preference shares amounting to ` 3,875 crores of tw
redeemed.
8. Key Pending matters:
a) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on a complaint filed by the Belaire / Park Plac
passed orders dated August 12, 2011 and August 29, 2011 wherein the CCI had imposed a penalty of
Limited (“DLF” or “the Company”) or, restraining DLF from formulating and imposing allegedly unfai
Gurgaon and further ordered to suitably modify the alleged unfair conditions on its buyers.
The said orders of CCI were challenged by DLF on several grounds by filing appeals before the Comp
(COMPAT). The COMPAT, pending hearing and till final orders had granted stay on demand of penal
by CCI.
COMPAT vide its order dated May 19, 2014 accepted the arguments of DLF that since the agreements
coming into force of section 4 of the Act, the clauses of the agreements entered in 2006-07 coul
establishing contravention of section 4 of the Act, however COMPAT held that the company is
Gurgaon being the relevant market and has abused its dominant position in relation to certain actions w
of the Competition Act and has accordingly upheld the penalty imposed by CCI.
COMPAT further held that CCI could not have directed modifications of the Agreement as the power
under Section 27 is only in relation to Section 3 and cannot be applied for any action in contravention
The Company has filed an Appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated May
COMPAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated August 27, 2014 admitted the Ap
company to deposit penalty of ` 630 crores in the Court.
In compliance of the order, the Company has deposited ` 630 crores with the Hon’ble Supreme
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 05,2016 has directed the Appeals to be listed for
of July, 2016.
b) During the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company received judgments from the Hon’ble Hig
Haryana cancelling the sale deed of land relating to IT SEZ Project in Gurgaon. The Company fil
(SLP) challenging the orders in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has admitted the matter and stayed the operation of the impugned
Based on the advice of the independent legal counsels, the management believes that there is a reasona
succeeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Pending the final decisions on the above m
been made in these
standalone financial results.
c) i. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had issued a Show
June 25, 2013 under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 (“the A
of the SEBI (Disclosure & Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 (“DIP Guidelines”)
(Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (“ICDR Regulation
allegations in the same.
The Company filed its reply with SEBI, placed written submissions and participated in t
Hon’ble Whole Time Member, in which it replied to each allegation levelled in the said
The Hon’ble Whole Time member however rejected the reply filed by the Company and
10, 2014 restrained the Company and six others from accessing the securities market
buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, in any manner, w
three years.
The Company has filed an appeal against the said order before Securities Appellate Trib
order dated March 13, 2015 allowed all the appeals and the impugned order passed by S
aside.
SEBI has filed a statutory appeal under section 15Z of SEBI Act before Hon’ble Sup
On April 24, 2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India admitted the appeal (‘Ap
issued notice on interim application. No stay has been granted by Hon’ble Supreme Cou
SEBI had filed an application stating that proposed sale of Compulsory Convertible Pref
DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, one of the unlisted subsidiary of the Compa
third party Institutional Investors should not be allowed during the pendency of the appe
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the proposed transactions. The Hon’ble Suprem
and has kept the application to be heard along with the Appeal.
ii. SEBI also issued a SCN dated August 28, 2013 under Sections 15HA and 15HB
under Rule 4 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by
Rules, 1995 (“Adjudication Rules”), hearing on which has been completed and th
written synopsis/submissions.
By way of order dated February 26, 2015, the adjudicating officer of SEBI imposed pena
its directors and officer under Section 15HA and under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1
The Company, its directors and officer have filed appeal before SAT impugning the orde
passed by an Adjudicating Officer of SEBI. The
Appeal is listed before SAT and in its order dated April 15, 2015, SEBI has undertaken not to
February 26, 2015 during pendency of the appeal. The appeals are listed on July 13, 2016 for argument
The Company and its legal advisors believe that it has not acted in contravention of law either during it
otherwise. The Company has full faith in the judicial process and is confident of vindication of i
9. a) As already reported, in the earlier period(s), disallowance of SEZ profits u/s 80IAB of
were made by the Income Tax Authorities in the assessment of the Company raising demands amoun
assessment year 2011-12;
` 72.85 crores for the assessment year 2010-11; ` 355.24 crores for the assessment year 2009
assessment year 2008-09 respectively.
The Company had filed appeals before the appropriate appellate authorities against these demand
years. In certain cases partial/full relief has been granted by the Appellate Authorities. The Company
Department have further preferred appeals before the higher authorities in those cases.
Based on the advice from independent tax experts and the development on the appeals, the managemen
tax so demanded will not be sustained on completion of the appellate proceedings and accord
by the appellate authorities, no provision has been made in these standalone financial results.
b) The petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the acti
Government to acquire the land belonging to Gram Panchayat of village Wazirabad, District Gurg
thereafter selling the same to the Company, seeking directions from the court for quashing of the
Section 4 & 6 dated August 8, 2003 and January 20, 2004.
The Petitioners therein also sought quashing of the award dated January 19, 2006 and the regular le
February 9, 2010 issued in favour of the Company for 350.715 acres of land.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide its final order dated September 3, 2014, while uphold
however disapproved the allotment in favour of the Company. The Hon’ble High Court passed an order
February 9, 2010 issued in favour of the Company in abeyance and further directed the Haryana State
Infrastructure Development Corporation (‘HSIIDC’) to initiate fresh allotment process for hig
land in question with an option to State to revive the RLA in case no better bid is quoted by the public
The Company has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging
September 3, 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou
the Respondents and
directed status quo to be maintained by the parties.
 (` in crores)

ng to ` 3,875 crores of two subsidiary companies are

 by the Belaire / Park Place owners Association had
had imposed a penalty of ` 630 crores on DLF
d imposing allegedly unfair conditions with buyers in
on its buyers.
appeals before the Competition Appellate Tribunal
d stay on demand of penalty of ` 630 Crores imposed

that since the agreements were entered into prior to

ntered in 2006-07 could not be looked into for
held that the company is a dominant player in
lation to certain actions which is violative of Section 4
CI.
Agreement as the power to modify the agreement
ny action in contravention of Section 4 of the Act.
inst the order dated May 19, 2014 passed by the
7, 2014 admitted the Appeal and directed the

with the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

e Appeals to be listed for final hearing in the third week

ents from the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and

Gurgaon. The Company filed Special Leave petitions

peration of the impugned judgments till further orders.

ves that there is a reasonably strong likelihood of
ecisions on the above matter, no adjustment has
 EBI) had issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated
SEBI Act, 1992 (“the Act”) read with clause 17.1
2000 (“DIP Guidelines”) and Regulation 111 of SEBI
2009 (“ICDR Regulations”), and levelled certain

sions and participated in the hearings conducted by the

gation levelled in the said Show Cause Notice (SCN).
filed by the Company and vide its order dated October
ng the securities market and prohibiting them from
directly, in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) vide majority

mpugned order passed by SEBI has been quashed and set

I Act before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

admitted the appeal (‘Appeal’) filed by SEBI and
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in favour of SEBI.
mpulsory Convertible Preference Shares (‘CCPS’) in
subsidiary of the Company, by the promoters, to
the pendency of the appeal and have sought stay from
ons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not pass any order

Sections 15HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 and

Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer)
been completed and the Company has filed its

cer of SEBI imposed penalties upon Company, some of

n 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992.
e SAT impugning the order dated February 26, 2015
BI has undertaken not to enforce the order dated
uly 13, 2016 for arguments before SAT.
ion of law either during its initial public offer or
nfident of vindication of its stand in the near future.
SEZ profits u/s 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
raising demands amounting to ` 73.09 crores for the

he assessment year 2009-10 and ` 487.23 crores for

ties against these demands for the said assessment

uthorities. The Company and Income Tax
ose cases.
e appeals, the management is confident that additional
proceedings and accordingly, pending the decision
inancial results.
Court challenging the action of the Haryana
Wazirabad, District Gurgaon for public purpose and
urt for quashing of the acquisition proceedings under

9, 2006 and the regular letter of allotment (RLA) dated

mber 3, 2014, while upholding the acquisition of land has

igh Court passed an order to keep the RLA dated
irected the Haryana State Industrial and
llotment process for higher returns in respect of the
id is quoted by the public at large.
ourt of India challenging the judgment dated
e Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued notice to