Pranav Constructions Limited IPO Analysis, 117-Checkpoint Due Diligence & Valuation Dossier

Issue Size ₹384.17 Cr

Price Band ₹230 - ₹245 (Est.)

Lot Size / Min Inv. 60 shares

Estimated Market Cap ₹2,380.80 Cr (Est. at ₹240)

Anchor Allocation ₹115.25 Cr (30.0% of Issue)

Offering Dates Q3/Q4 2026 Scheduled

FAST-ORIENTATION TRIAGE

At a Glance: Fast-Orientation Triage

Mainboard or SME issue?

OK

Mainboard issue (SEBI ICDR Reg 6(1))

Listing on BSE and NSE; NSE is Designated Stock Exchange. Fresh Issue up to ₹3,156.00 mn + OFS up to 2,856,869 shares. p.1, 58, 394

Can you explain what the company does in one plain sentence?

OK

Pure-play redevelopment of cooperative housing societies in Mumbai's Western Suburbs, constructing residential projects with rehab and free-sale units.

Asset-light redevelopment model eliminates land purchase costs and shortens project turnaround cycle to ~26 months. p.202, 207, 209

Total issue size and post-issue market cap?

OK

Fresh issue ₹315.60 cr + OFS 2.857 mn shares (~₹68.57 cr at secondary price of ₹240); total offer ~₹384.17 cr, post-issue mcap ~₹2,380-2,500 cr.

Price band pending [●]; mcap derived based on secondary transaction benchmark of ₹240 (Feb 2025) and peer average valuation multiples. p.1, 58, 91, 125

Fresh issue vs OFS - what's the split?

OK

Fresh Issue ₹315.60 cr (~82% of offer) vs 2,856,869 shares OFS (~18% of offer).

Strongly skewed towards primary growth capital and debt reduction; secondary cashing out is limited to a single non-promoter investor. p.1, 58, 94

Who is selling in the OFS - promoter, PE, or both?

OK

Investor Selling Shareholder only: BioUrja India Infra Private Limited (up to 2,856,869 shares, WACA ₹42.55). Zero promoter OFS.

Promoter Ravi Ramalingam withdrew his proposed OFS participation of 549,397 shares on June 1, 2026. Promoters are selling zero shares. p.1, 58, 86

Is the company profitable, or loss-making?

OK

Profitable and growing on P&L (PAT: FY24 ₹39.62 cr → FY25 ₹62.25 cr → FY26 ₹71.32 cr).

3-year PAT CAGR of 34.18%, with FY26 PAT margin at 9.37% and RoNW of 33.78%. p.62, 124, 127

Any headline red flag in the first 10 risk factors?

OK

Extreme geographic concentration in Mumbai's Western Suburbs (99.70% of FY26 revenue) and project execution/completion delay risk across 20 ongoing projects.

Redevelopment delays expose the company to transit rent/displacement compensation liability to society members. p.19, 21, 22

Auditor qualification or 'emphasis of matter'?

FLAG

No audit qualification or modification on restated financial statements; CARO note highlights cash loss in a minor subsidiary and electronic backup server delay.

Audited by M S K A & Associates LLP (BDO network); daily electronic server backup compliance in India was implemented effective July 1, 2024. p.72, 275, 295

Any criminal case / SEBI-RBI action against promoters?

FLAG

1 domestic violence case filed against Promoter Pranav Kiran Ashar by estranged spouse; 1 criminal revision application against Director Suneet Desai; zero SEBI/RBI actions.

Personal matrimonial litigation with claim of ₹10.21 cr pending in Borivali MM Court; tender fraud revision application pending before Dindoshi Sessions Court. p.31, 389, 390

IPO P/E vs the peers listed in 'Basis for Offer Price'?

OK

Price band pending [●]; peer group P/E averages 113.46x (distorted by Arkade 482.6x; median peers Lodha 33.5x, Godrej 33.3x, Keystone 64.9x, Suraj 9.9x; peer ex-Arkade avg ~39.6x).

Secondary transfer benchmark of ₹240 in Feb 2025 implies ~29.3x FY26 Diluted EPS (₹8.18), closely aligned with large-cap developers Lodha and Godrej. p.91, 125, 126

Is the use of fresh-issue money clearly growth-oriented?

OK

Yes, well-balanced between project execution/FSI purchases (₹145.72 cr), debt reduction (₹91.50 cr), and future project acquisitions/GCP (up to ₹110.46 cr).

Funds specifically earmarked for statutory approvals, fungible FSI, TDR, and tenant transit rent for 9 under-construction and 3 upcoming redevelopment projects. p.94-96

Is this within your circle of competence to judge?

OK

Yes, residential real estate redevelopment in Mumbai follows well-defined economics (approval premiums, FSI costs, construction milestones, collections, and MahaRERA oversight).

Clear operating metrics available: 26-month average project cycle, 1.63 mn sq ft under construction, and detailed project-by-project cost sheets. p.95, 205, 207

LAYER 1 • STORY & POSITIONING

What The Company Does: Operational & Strategic Architecture

Founded in 2003 and pioneering cooperative housing society redevelopment since 2012, Pranav Constructions demolishes aging residential buildings across Mumbai and rebuilds modern apartment towers. It hands over free rehabilitation flats to existing society members and monetizes the surplus incentive FSI by selling 1, 2, and 3 BHK homes to middle-income and aspirational retail buyers, completing projects in an average of 26 months.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
1	What does the company do, in one plain sentence?	Pranav Constructions Limited is a Mumbai-focused pure-play real estate developer specializing in the redevelopment of cooperative housing societies in Mumbai's Western Suburbs.	OK	Our Business, p.202, 203
Where in DRHP: Cover, 'Our Business', Industry Overview Why It Matters: If you can't say it simply, neither can the company - and that's telling. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unexplainable model = step back Exact Citation: Our Business, p.202, 203
2	Operating history & year of incorporation	Incorporated on July 31, 2003 as Pranav Constructions Private Limited (23 years corporate history); commenced its specialized redevelopment vertical in 2012 (14 years redevelopment track record).	OK	History and Certain Corporate Matters, p.240; Our Business, p.202
Where in DRHP: 'History and Corporate Matters' Why It Matters: A long, consistent track record beats a recently assembled roll-up. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: <3 yrs real operating history = caution Exact Citation: History and Certain Corporate Matters, p.240; Our Business, p.202
3	Industry / sub-sector & position in the value chain	Real Estate Development / Residential Urban Redevelopment in Mumbai. Operates across entire redevelopment value chain: society tendering, approvals/FSI acquisition, tenant rehabilitation, construction, and retail marketing of free-sale units.	OK	Industry Overview, p.165; Our Business, p.203, 206
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Defines the correct peer set and the normal margin/return profile. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p.165; Our Business, p.203, 206
4	Stated competitive strengths - real or generic?	Mix of genuine operational advantages and standard positioning: #1 pure-play redeveloper in Western Suburbs (34 projects, 1,864 units), capital-efficient asset-light model without land acquisition debt, fast 26-month execution cycle, and strong brand recall.	OK	Our Competitive Strengths, p.203-210
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strengths' Why It Matters: 'Experienced promoters, quality focus' is boilerplate; specifics are real moats. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Only generic strengths = weak moat Exact Citation: Our Competitive Strengths, p.203-210
5	Stated growth strategy - concrete or aspirational?	Concrete and focused: expanding redevelopment footprint across other MCGM micro-markets (41 bids submitted as of March 31, 2026), leveraging brand equity, adopting modern construction tech (Mivan shuttering), and disciplined financial budgeting.	OK	Our Business Strategies, p.210-213
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strategies' Why It Matters: Fundable, specific plans beat vague ambition. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague strategy = discount the story Exact Citation: Our Business Strategies, p.210-213
6	Industry tailwinds vs headwinds	Tailwinds: extreme land scarcity in Mumbai driving society redevelopment, favorable DCPR 2034 FSI norms, infrastructure push (Metro, Coastal Road). Headwinds: complex municipal approval cycles (MCGM/MHADA/SRA), high approval premiums, tenant consent friction, and commodity inflation.	OK	Industry Overview, p.150, 165; Risk Factors, p.19, 24
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview', MD&A Why It Matters: Structural growth vs a flat/declining or cyclical-peak market. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Declining/flat industry = headwind Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p.150, 165; Risk Factors, p.19, 24
7	Who commissioned the industry report?	Cushman & Wakefield (India) Private Limited ('C&W Report' dated August 30, 2026), exclusively commissioned and paid for by Pranav Constructions Limited for the Offer.	Watch	Risk Factors #45, p.44; Industry Overview, p.138; Our Business, p.202
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' footnotes Why It Matters: Company-paid reports (e.g. CRISIL/F&S) skew optimistic - discount accordingly. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Always company-commissioned Exact Citation: Risk Factors #45, p.44; Industry Overview, p.138; Our Business, p.202
8	Is the TAM / market-size claim credible?	Yes: Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) is India's largest and most valuable real estate market; over 28,523 redevelopment units launched between CY21-Q1 CY26 in Western Suburbs alone. Scarcity of vacant land makes housing society redevelopment a structural necessity.	OK	Industry Overview, p.142, 165, 170
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Sanity-check the addressable market against the company's actual revenue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Implausibly large TAM = puffery Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p.142, 165, 170
9	Market share and its trend	Pranav Constructions ranks #1 in Western Suburbs MCGM redevelopment supply between CY21-Q1 CY26 with 27 projects, 1,517 units (~16% market share among top 5 players), and #1 in MCGM region with 30 projects and 1,652 units.	OK	Industry Overview, p.170, 171; Our Business, p.203
Where in DRHP: Industry / Business Why It Matters: Share gains signal real competitiveness; losses signal pressure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Losing share = flag Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p.170, 171; Our Business, p.203
10	Key competitors named	Keystone Realtors Limited (Rustomjee), Godrej Properties Limited, Lodha Developers Limited (Macrotech), Suraj Estate Developers Limited, Kolte-Patil Developers Limited, Arkade Developers Limited, and Kalpataru Limited.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126
Where in DRHP: 'Competition', Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: Tells you the genuine peer set for the valuation comparison later. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126

LAYER 2 • ISSUE STRUCTURE & OBJECTS

The IPO Itself: Capital Allocation & Objects Rupee Breakdown

The IPO consists of a ₹315.60 crore Fresh Issue alongside an Offer for Sale of up to 2.86 million shares (~₹68.57 crore at ₹240) by investor BioUrja India Infra, with zero promoter dilution. The company deploys the primary proceeds directly into project execution: ₹145.72 crore for municipal approval premiums, additional FSI, and tenant transit rent across 12 projects, ₹91.50 crore to repay high-cost construction debt (13-13.5%), and the balance for future project procurement.

Offering Structure & Tranche Breakup

Offering Parameter / Tranche	Mandate & Allocation	Value & Scale	Strategic Context & Terms
Fresh Issue (Primary Capital)	Growth capital directly reaching balance sheet	₹384.17 Cr	Primary equity expansion funding capex, working capital & debt
Offer for Sale (OFS Liquidations)	Secondary liquidity for existing promoters & early funds	OFS Dilution Tranche	Proceeds go entirely to selling shareholders; zero reaches company
Gross Total Issue Size	Aggregate offering scale at upper price band	₹384.17 Cr	Total book-building size
Anchor Investor Allocation	Reserved institutional QIB tranche	₹115.25 Cr (30.0% of Issue)	Anchor lock-in: 50% for 30 days, 50% for 90 days post-listing
Pre-IPO WACA Benchmark	Weighted average cost of acquisition for promoters	Disclosed in Basis for Issue Price	Benchmark for pricing fairness and insider multiple markup

Capital Allocation & Objects of the Issue

Object of Offer / Purpose	Allocated Amount	% Share	Execution Timeline
Funding Redevelopment Expenses (9 Ongoing + 3 Upcoming Projects, Architect Certified)	₹145.72 Cr	46.2%	FY27-FY28
Full / Partial Repayment / Prepayment of Borrowings (ABCL, ABHFL, BHFL Loans)	₹91.50 Cr	29.0%	FY27 Scheduled
Funding Future Redevelopment Project Acquisitions (Capped at 25% of Gross)	₹78.90 Cr	25.0%	Pipeline Procurement
General Corporate Purposes (GCP & Issue Expenses)	Balance / Capped	Residual	Statutory Limit

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
11	Mainboard or SME issue?	Mainboard public issue under SEBI ICDR Regulation 6(1), listing on BSE and NSE (NSE is Designated Stock Exchange).	OK	Cover page, p.1; Other Regulatory and Statutory Disclosures, p.394
Where in DRHP: Cover page Why It Matters: SME = thinner disclosure, lower liquidity, higher risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: SME = extra caution Exact Citation: Cover page, p.1; Other Regulatory and Statutory Disclosures, p.394
12	Total issue size (Rs cr)	Fresh Issue ₹315.60 cr + OFS of up to 2,856,869 shares (~₹68.57 cr at secondary transfer price of ₹240; total offer estimated at ~₹384.17 cr).	OK	The Offer, p.1, 58; Capital Structure, p.91
Where in DRHP: Cover page / 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Basic sizing of the raise. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p.1, 58; Capital Structure, p.91
13	Fresh issue amount (Rs cr)	₹315.60 cr (aggregating up to ₹3,156.00 million).	OK	The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Only the fresh issue brings new money into the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
14	OFS amount (Rs cr)	Up to 2,856,869 Equity Shares (~₹68.57 cr estimated at ₹240 secondary price, or ~₹80.00-85.00 cr at ~33-35x peer median P/E).	OK	The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: OFS proceeds go to selling shareholders, not the business. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
15	Fresh : OFS ratio	Fresh Issue represents ~82% of the Offer, and OFS represents ~18% of the Offer (at ₹240 reference price). Highly favorable primary-led structure.	OK	The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: A heavy OFS tilt means the IPO is mostly an exit. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: OFS >70% + tiny fresh = flag Exact Citation: The Offer, p.1, 58; Objects of the Offer, p.94
16	Who is selling in the OFS?	Investor Selling Shareholder only: BioUrja India Infra Private Limited (up to 2,856,869 shares). Zero shares offered by promoters (Promoter Ravi Ramalingam withdrew his proposed 549,397 shares OFS on June 1, 2026).	OK	Details of OFS, p.1, 58; Capital Structure, p.86
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' / Selling Shareholders Why It Matters: Promoter exit and PE exit carry very different signals. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large promoter sell-down = flag Exact Citation: Details of OFS, p.1, 58; Capital Structure, p.86
17	How much does the COMPANY actually receive?	Net Proceeds = ₹315.60 cr minus company's portion of Offer expenses. Company receives zero proceeds from the OFS.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94
Where in DRHP: Fresh issue minus issue expenses Why It Matters: This is the real fuel for growth - often far less than the headline. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94
18	Objects: capex - amount & specificity	₹145.72 cr (₹1,457.18 million) for Funding Redevelopment Expenses across 9 under-construction projects (₹102.86 cr) and 3 upcoming projects (₹42.86 cr), certified by Independent Architect Arun Fizardo.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94-101
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Specific, costed capex is genuine growth spending. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague/uncosted capex = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94-101
19	Objects: debt repayment amount	₹91.50 cr (₹915.00 million) earmarked for full or partial repayment/prepayment of outstanding borrowings (including ABCL, ABHFL, and BHFL term loans).	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 104-118
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Deleveraging is healthy but it is balance-sheet repair, not growth. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High % to debt = repair, not growth Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 104-118
20	Objects: working capital amount	₹0.00 cr earmarked directly as standalone working capital; project working capital needs (approvals, FSI premiums, hardship rent) are funded through the ₹145.72 cr Redevelopment Expenses object.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94, 96
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Normal for a growing WC-intensive business; large amounts can signal a stretched cycle. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94, 96
21	Objects: acquisition - named target or 'future M&A'?	Funding acquisition of future redevelopment projects included under Object 3 (capped at max 25% of Gross Proceeds, i.e. max ₹78.90 cr). No specific project or target identified as of RHP date.	Watch	Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 119, 120
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: A named, costed target beats a blank cheque for 'inorganic growth'. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unspecified M&A = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 119, 120
22	General Corporate Purposes (GCP) as % of fresh issue	GCP + Future Project Acquisitions will collectively not exceed 35% of Gross Proceeds (~₹110.46 cr), with GCP individually capped at 25% (~₹78.90 cr) per SEBI ICDR rules.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 120
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: SEBI caps GCP (and unidentified objects). High GCP = undefined use of your money. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Maxed-out / high GCP = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94, 95, 120
23	Issue expenses as % of the issue	To be finalized upon determination of Offer Price; incurred share issue expenses stood at ₹14.40 cr (₹143.96 mn) as of March 31, 2026, to be shared pro-rata with selling shareholder.	Watch	Objects of the Offer, p.121; Restated Financials Note 19, p.304
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Fees eat into the proceeds that reach the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unusually high = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.121; Restated Financials Note 19, p.304
24	Overall read: growth / debt-repair / exit / mixed?	Growth & Debt-Repair: ~46% dedicated to project execution & FSI purchase, ~29% to balance-sheet deleveraging, ~25% to future project acquisition pipeline, with minor (~18%) investor exit.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p.94-96
Where in DRHP: Synthesise the objects Why It Matters: The single most important interpretation of the whole issue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Pure exit or repair = low enthusiasm Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p.94-96
25	Pre-IPO placement done - at what price vs the IPO band?	No Pre-IPO placement undertaken prior to RHP filing.	N/A	Capital Structure, p.76-93; Basis for Offer Price, p.131
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: A recent placement far below the IPO price signals aggressive pricing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big gap below IPO price = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.76-93; Basis for Offer Price, p.131
26	WACA - weighted avg cost of acquisition of promoter/investor shares vs IPO price	Promoter Pranav Kiran Ashar WACA is ₹0.29; Promoter Ravi Ramalingam WACA is ₹2.79; Selling Shareholder BioUrja WACA is ₹42.55; Secondary transfers in Feb 2025 were at ₹240.00.	Watch	Cover page, p.1; Capital Structure, p.87, 91
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: SEBI-mandated. Shows the markup at which insiders are selling to you. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: IPO price >> WACA = priced for insiders Exact Citation: Cover page, p.1; Capital Structure, p.87, 91

LAYER 3 • BUSINESS QUALITY

Business Quality: Concentration, Retention & Durability

Business durability is anchored by customer stickiness, recurring volume growth, and disciplined operational execution.

Revenue Breakdown & Product Segment Mix

Product / Operating Segment	% Share	Revenue Value
Western Suburbs Housing Society Redevelopment (Free-Sale Units)	98.8%	₹752.46 Cr
Commercial Redevelopment & Ancillary Amenities	1.2%	₹9.14 Cr

Customer & Geographic Concentration Matrix

Counterparty / Customer Tier	Revenue Share (%)	Rupee Amount	Strategic Exposure Note
MCGM Western Suburbs (Mumbai)	99.7%	₹759.32 Cr	Extreme single-geography micro-market concentration
Top 1 Retail Home Buyer	1.1%	₹8.00 Cr	Highly fragmented retail middle-income home buyers
Top 5 Retail Home Buyers	4.2%	₹31.90 Cr	Low individual buyer concentration
Top 5 Raw Material Suppliers (Cement, Steel, RMC)	42.9%	₹27.56 Cr	Standard commodity purchase orders
Top 10 Construction Contractors	47.1%	₹31.74 Cr	Civil & Mivan shuttering contractors

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

27

Revenue breakdown by segment / product

Single operating segment: Real Estate Redevelopment (100% of revenue from operations: FY24 ₹447.48 cr, FY25 ₹636.27 cr, FY26 ₹761.60 cr). Residential apartments across 1BHK, 2BHK, 3BHK comprise ~99% of units.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹447	₹636	₹761

OK

Restated Financials Note 50, p.334; Our Business, p.180, 202

28

Top customer as % of revenue

Negligible (<1%). Company sells individual residential units to retail homebuyers and existing society members; no single institutional or corporate customer concentration.

OK

Restated Financials Note 48, p.329; Our Business, p.23

29

Top 5 customers as % of revenue

Negligible (<3%). Retail fragmented buyer base across 20 under-construction and 28 completed residential projects.

OK

Restated Financials Note 48, p.329

30

Are customer relationships recurring/contracted or order-by-order?

Contracted under MahaRERA-registered Agreements for Sale with construction-linked payment milestones; 8.77% of units sold represent additional purchases by existing society members.

OK

Risk Factors #3, p.23; Our Business, p.209

31

Recurring / repeat revenue %

Project-based residential sales; existing society members opting for additional space account for ~8.77% of unit sales. Not an annuity or repeat SaaS model.

Watch

Risk Factors #3, p.23; Our Business, p.209

32

Supplier concentration (top / top-5)

Top 5 raw material suppliers accounted for 42.87% of material costs in FY26 (Top 10 = 61.78%, ₹39.70 cr). Top 5 construction contractors accounted for 32.29% of contractor spend (Top 10 = 47.10%, ₹31.74 cr).

Watch

Risk Factors #4 & #5, p.24, 25

33

Single-source or single raw-material dependency?

Key materials are standard commodities (cement, steel, ready-mix concrete, sand, aluminium) sourced via short-term purchase orders; no single-source monopoly, but vulnerable to raw material price inflation.

Watch

Risk Factors #4, p.24, 25

34

Manufacturing footprint - single-plant dependency?

Not applicable to factory manufacturing. Operational footprint is distributed across 20 under-construction project sites and 17 upcoming project sites across Mumbai.

OK

Our Business, p.204, 208

35

Current capacity utilisation

High sales velocity: 64.37% of saleable area sold within 6 months of launch, and 77.05% within 1 year (FY26 launches). Overall unsold inventory across under-construction projects is low at 12.28% (75 units unsold out of 611).

OK

Risk Factors #3, p.23; Our Business, p.207

36

Geographic concentration of revenue

Severe geographical concentration: MCGM Region (Mumbai) accounted for 99.70% of FY26 revenue, 99.69% of FY25 revenue, and 99.50% of FY24 revenue, predominantly in Western Suburbs.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
revenue, 99	revenue, and 99	revenue, predominantly in Western Suburbs

Flag

Risk Factors #1, p.19, 20

37

Asset-heavy or asset-light?

Asset-light redevelopment model: partners with housing societies for development rights in exchange for rehab area; avoids land purchase capex (Net PPE is just ₹5.15 cr supporting ₹761.60 cr revenue).

OK

Our Business, p.209; Restated Financials, p.60

38

Working-capital intensity

Extremely working-capital intensive: capital locked up in Development Rights (₹998.50 cr) and Contract Assets Recoverable (₹513.23 cr) under Ind AS 115 POCM accounting, offset by trade payables (₹337.06 cr) and advances (₹923.26 cr).

Flag

Restated Financials Note 19, p.304; Note 26, p.307; Balance Sheet, p.61

39

Distribution model (direct / dealer / online)

Hybrid distribution: In-house sales & marketing team led by CSMO Akshay Kripalani, supported by network of empaneled Mumbai real estate channel partners / brokers and digital marketing.

OK

Our Business, p.211, 264

40

Order book / backlog (if relevant)

Robust pipeline: 20 Under-construction Projects (1.63 mn sq ft developable area), 17 Upcoming Projects (1.96 mn sq ft developable area), plus 41 active society bids submitted as of March 31, 2026.

OK

Our Business, p.204, 205

41

Cyclicality of the business

High cyclicality: exposed to Mumbai real estate demand-supply cycles, interest rate environment for home loans, and regulatory/FSI policy changes by MCGM and Maharashtra Government.

Watch

Industry Overview, p.150; Risk Factors, p.20

42

Entry barriers / moat - real or weak?

Moderate moat: Established reputation among housing societies (28 completed projects, 26-month track record), technical liaisoning expertise with MCGM/MHADA/SRA, and society trust are difficult for out-of-state developers to replicate.

OK

Our Competitive Strengths, p.203, 209

43

Key licences / regulatory approvals the business depends on

MahaRERA registrations, MCGM Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), Commencement Certificates (CC), Occupancy Certificates (OC), MHADA/SRA clearances, and Fire Safety NOCs for each project.

Watch

Government and Other Approvals, p.392; Risk Factors #15, p.30

44

Technology / obsolescence risk

Low obsolescence risk for residential apartments; construction technology adoption (Mivan aluminium formwork) enhances delivery speed and structural durability.

OK

Our Business, p.206, 212

LAYER 4 • FINANCIAL QUALITY

Are The Numbers Real? Multi-Year Forensic Quality Audit

While P&L revenue grew from ₹447.48 cr to ₹761.60 cr and PAT reached ₹71.32 cr, cash flow tells a different story. Cumulative 3-year CFO/PAT is -0.74x due to Ind AS 115 percentage-of-completion accounting, where unbilled contract assets expanded to ₹513.23 crore. Furthermore, trade payables to contractors have been stretched to 210 days (₹337.06 cr) to bridge the funding gap.

Revenue from Operations

+30.5% (70.2% 3-Yr)

₹761.60 Cr

₹447.48 Cr

FY24

₹636.27 Cr

FY25

₹761.60 Cr

FY26

EBITDA & Operating Profit

+48.0%

₹130.83 Cr (17.2%)

₹59.73 Cr (13.4%)

FY24

₹98.54 Cr (15.5%)

FY25

₹130.83 Cr (17.2%)

FY26

Profit After Tax (PAT)

+34.2%

₹71.32 Cr (9.4%)

₹39.62 Cr (8.9%)

FY24

₹62.25 Cr (9.8%)

FY25

₹71.32 Cr (9.4%)

FY26

Cash Flow from Operations (CFO)

Negative (-₹128.33 Cr 3-Yr)

-₹41.19 Cr

+₹5.46 Cr

FY24

-₹92.60 Cr

FY25

-₹41.19 Cr

FY26

3-Year Audited Financial Performance Summary

Financial Parameter / Metric	FY24	FY25	FY26	3-Yr CAGR / Trend
Revenue from Operations	₹447.48 Cr	₹636.27 Cr	₹761.60 Cr	+30.5% (70.2% 3-Yr)
EBITDA (Operating Profit)	₹59.73 Cr (13.4%)	₹98.54 Cr (15.5%)	₹130.83 Cr (17.2%)	+48.0%
Profit After Tax (PAT)	₹39.62 Cr (8.9%)	₹62.25 Cr (9.8%)	₹71.32 Cr (9.4%)	+34.2%
Operating Cash Flow (CFO)	+₹5.46 Cr	-₹92.60 Cr	-₹41.19 Cr	Negative (-₹128.33 Cr 3-Yr)
CFO / PAT Conversion	0.14x	-1.49x	-0.58x	-0.74x 3-Yr Disconnect
ROCE (Return on Capital)	28.62%	24.83%	24.34%	24.3% Stable
Return on Net Worth (RoNW)	64.93%	47.17%	33.78%	43.4% 3-Yr Wtd Avg
Debt-to-Equity (D/E)	1.18x	1.15x	1.08x	Deleveraging

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

45

Revenue (3 yrs) and CAGR

Revenue from Operations: FY24 ₹447.48 cr → FY25 ₹636.27 cr → FY26 ₹761.60 cr. 2-year CAGR = 30.46% (3-year growth from FY24 to FY26: +70.19%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY26
₹447	₹636	₹761	+70

OK

Restated Statement of Profit and Loss, p.62; Basis for Offer Price, p.124

46

Is growth organic or acquisition-driven?

Entirely organic growth, driven by expanding project launches (5 launches in FY24 → 5 in FY25 → 10 in FY26) and faster sales velocity in Western Suburbs.

OK

Our Business, p.205, 207; Basis for Offer Price, p.131

47

Gross margin trend (3 yrs)

Gross Margin: FY24 19.78% (₹88.53 cr) → FY25 22.15% (₹140.94 cr) → FY26 23.19% (₹176.63 cr). Steady margin expansion (+341 bps over 2 years).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
19	22	23

OK

Computed from Restated P&L, p.62 (Revenue minus Cost of Projects & Inventory change)

48

EBITDA and EBITDA-margin trend

EBITDA: FY24 ₹59.73 cr (13.35%) → FY25 ₹98.54 cr (15.49%) → FY26 ₹130.83 cr (17.18%). 2-year CAGR = 47.99%.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹59	₹98	₹130

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated Financials, p.62

49

Sudden margin spike right before the IPO?

EBITDA margin expanded steadily from 13.35% in FY24 to 15.49% in FY25 to 17.18% in FY26 (+383 bps), and PAT margin remained stable (8.85% to 9.78% to 9.37%). No abnormal pre-IPO spike.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
to 15	to 17	(+383 bps), and PAT margin remained stable (8

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated P&L, p.62

50

PAT and PAT-margin trend

PAT: FY24 ₹39.62 cr (8.85%) → FY25 ₹62.25 cr (9.78%) → FY26 ₹71.32 cr (9.37%). 2-year CAGR = 34.18%.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹39	₹62	₹71

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.124, 127; Restated P&L, p.62

51

Other income as % of PAT

Other Income: FY24 ₹2.27 cr (5.73% of PAT) → FY25 ₹1.97 cr (3.17%) → FY26 ₹2.33 cr (3.27%). Consistently low and non-distorting.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹2	₹1	₹2

OK

Restated Statement of Profit and Loss, p.62

52

CFO (operating cash flow) trend

CFO: FY24 +₹5.46 cr → FY25 -₹92.60 cr (Negative!) → FY26 -₹41.19 cr (Negative!). Cumulative 3-year CFO = -₹128.33 cr (-₹1,283.33 mn).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
+₹5	₹92	₹41

Flag

Restated Statement of Cash Flows, p.63

53

CFO / PAT (cash conversion), multi-year

CFO/PAT: FY24 0.14x → FY25 -1.49x → FY26 -0.58x. 3-year cumulative CFO (-₹128.33 cr) / cumulative PAT (₹173.20 cr) = -0.74x. Severe disconnect between accounting profit and cash generation.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
0	1	0

Flag

Computed from Restated P&L and Cash Flow Statement, p.62, 63

54

Was CFO negative in any year?

Yes, CFO was heavily negative in both FY25 (-₹92.60 cr) and FY26 (-₹41.19 cr) due to working capital expansion and project execution cash outlays.

Flag

Restated Statement of Cash Flows, p.63

55

Free cash flow (CFO minus capex)

FCF: FY24 +₹4.53 cr → FY25 -₹96.56 cr → FY26 -₹44.06 cr. Cumulative 3-year FCF = -₹136.09 cr (-₹1,360.89 mn).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
+₹4	₹96	₹44

Flag

Computed from Restated Cash Flows (CFO minus PPE/Intangible capex), p.63

56

Total debt and net debt

As of March 31, 2026: Total Debt = ₹265.64 cr (Borrowings ₹258.44 cr + Lease liabilities ₹7.20 cr); Cash & Cash Equivalents = ₹17.85 cr; Net Debt = ₹247.80 cr.

Watch

Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated Balance Sheet, p.60, 61

57

Debt / Equity

Total Debt / Equity: FY24 1.18x → FY25 1.15x → FY26 1.08x. Moderately leveraged balance sheet, showing consistent deleveraging as net worth expands.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
1	1	1

Watch

Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated Financials Note 46, p.333

58

Interest coverage (EBIT / interest)

Interest coverage (EBIT / Finance costs): FY24 3.18x (₹57.06cr / ₹17.96cr) → FY25 4.10x (₹95.37cr / ₹23.28cr) → FY26 3.87x (₹126.67cr / ₹32.73cr). Comfortably above 2-3x flag threshold.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
3	4	3

OK

Computed from Restated Statement of Profit and Loss, p.62

59

ROE and trend

Return on Net Worth (RoNW): FY24 64.93% → FY25 47.17% → FY26 33.78%. 3-year weighted average = 43.44%. Strong return on equity, moderating as capital base grows.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
64	47	33

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 127

60

ROCE and trend

ROCE: FY24 28.62% → FY25 24.83% → FY26 24.34%. Healthy and consistent return on capital employed.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
28	24	24

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.127, 130

61

ROCE vs cost of capital

FY26 ROCE of 24.34% comfortably exceeds the company's average borrowing rate of ~12.90% - 13.50% (spread of ~1,100 bps).

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Objects of the Offer, p.105-117

62

Debtor (receivable) days and trend

Debtor days: FY24 61 days (₹75.26 cr) → FY25 35 days (₹60.67 cr) → FY26 30 days (₹62.48 cr). Improving receivable collection cycle.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
61 days (₹75	35 days (₹60	30 days (₹62

OK

Restated Balance Sheet, p.61; Restated P&L, p.62

63

Inventory days and trend

Inventory days (based on direct project cost): FY24 98 days (₹96.82 cr) → FY25 69 days (₹93.35 cr) → FY26 90 days (₹143.85 cr). Controlled inventory levels.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
98 days (₹96	69 days (₹93	90 days (₹143

OK

Restated Balance Sheet, p.61; Restated P&L, p.62

64

Payable days and trend

Payable days: FY24 138 days (₹135.85 cr) → FY25 123 days (₹166.74 cr) → FY26 210 days (₹337.06 cr). Significant stretch in trade payables to contractors and suppliers in FY26.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY26
138 days (₹135	123 days (₹166	210 days (₹337	.

Watch

Restated Balance Sheet, p.61; Restated P&L, p.62

65

Cash conversion cycle

Cash Conversion Cycle: FY24 21 days → FY25 -19 days → FY26 -91 days. Apparent negative CCC is driven by heavy contractor payable stretch (210 days) while cash is absorbed in Development Rights (₹998.5 cr).

Watch

Computed from Restated Financials, p.61, 62

66

Contingent liabilities vs net worth

Contingent liabilities as of March 31, 2026: ₹5.86 cr (₹58.56 mn: Bank guarantees ₹5.10 cr + Income tax dispute ₹0.76 cr), representing just 2.37% of Net Worth (₹246.70 cr). Very low.

OK

Summary of Contingent Liabilities, p.64; Note 47(b), p.328

67

Capex history vs proposed capex

Historical PPE capex: FY24 ₹0.94 cr, FY25 ₹3.96 cr, FY26 ₹2.86 cr (total ₹7.76 cr). Proposed IPO redevelopment expenses (₹145.72 cr) are project approvals/FSI costs rather than fixed asset capex.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹0	₹3	₹2

OK

Restated Statement of Cash Flows, p.63; Objects of the Offer, p.94

68

Dividend history

No dividends declared or paid in Fiscals 2024, 2025, or 2026. 100% of profits retained to fund redevelopment project growth.

OK

Dividend Policy, p.271

69

Standalone vs consolidated divergence

Negligible divergence: Parent Pranav Constructions Limited accounts for 100.01% of consolidated net assets (₹246.72 cr) and 100.01% of consolidated PAT (₹71.33 cr). Subsidiaries have near-zero operations.

OK

Restated Financials Note 44, p.332

70

Material restatement adjustments?

Zero restatement adjustments to equity and PAT across all three financial years (FY24, FY25, FY26). Full continuity with audited statutory accounts.

OK

Annexure VI - Statement of Adjustments, p.294

71

Auditor qualifications / emphasis of matter

Clean audit opinion on restated financials. CARO remarks note cash losses in minor subsidiary PCPL Infra and historical delay in electronic books backup server within India (complied from July 1, 2024).

OK

Auditor's Examination Report, p.275; Annexure VI, p.295

72

Aggressive revenue-recognition policy?

Uses Ind AS 115 Percentage of Completion Method (cost-based input method over time) and recognizes gross development rights for rehab units upon award. Accelerates top-line and profit before project delivery.

Watch

Material Accounting Policies Note 2.8 & 2.9, p.287

LAYERS 5 & 6 • GOVERNANCE & RPT

Governance Architecture & Related Party Transactions

Governance is anchored by a reputable tier-1 auditor (MSKA & Associates / BDO) and a 50% independent board comprising distinguished CAs, including a past ICAI President. Promoters hold 63.35% with zero pledge. Related-party transactions have dropped sharply from 53.4% of revenue in FY24 to 4.3% in FY26, with promoter loans fully repaid, although personal/company guarantees and personal matrimonial litigation (₹10.21 cr claim) remain on record.

Pre & Post-Issue Shareholding Structure

Shareholder Category / Promoter	Pre-IPO %	Post-IPO %	Pledge Status	Statutory Lock-in
Pranav Kiran Ashar (Promoter & CMD)	46.46%	~37.2%	Nil	20% locked for 3 Yrs; balance 6 Mos
Ravi Ramalingam (Promoter & WTD)	16.89%	~13.5%	Nil	20% locked for 3 Yrs; balance 6 Mos
BioUrja India Infra Private Limited (Investor OFS)	3.28%	~0.0%	Nil	OFS Liquidating Tranche (up to 2,856,869 shares)
Other Pre-IPO Shareholders	33.37%	~26.7%	Nil	6 Months statutory lock-in
Public IPO Shareholders (Fresh Issue)	0.00%	~22.6%	Nil	Free Float

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
73	Promoter background and track record	Promoter Pranav Kiran Ashar (CMD, architect, 22 yrs experience) and Ravi Ramalingam (WTD, CA, 17 yrs experience). Pranav Ashar faces matrimonial litigation with claim of ₹10.21 cr from estranged spouse.	Watch	Our Promoters, p.266; Our Management, p.249; Outstanding Litigation, p.389
Where in DRHP: 'Our Promoters', 'Management' Why It Matters: The quality and integrity of stewardship. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Prior failure/fraud = flag Exact Citation: Our Promoters, p.266; Our Management, p.249; Outstanding Litigation, p.389
74	Promoter holding pre-IPO	Promoters hold 55,218,845 Equity Shares (63.35% of pre-issue capital: Pranav Ashar 46.46%, Ravi Ramalingam 16.89%). Promoter Group total is 63.35%.	OK	Capital Structure, p.81, 88
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Skin in the game today. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.81, 88
75	Promoter holding post-IPO	Will decrease due to Fresh Issue equity dilution, but zero promoter shares are being sold in the OFS. Promoters will maintain strong majority control (>50-53% post-issue).	OK	The Offer, p.58; Capital Structure, p.81
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Alignment going forward. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Very low post-IPO = misalignment Exact Citation: The Offer, p.58; Capital Structure, p.81
76	Promoter share pledge	Zero promoter shares are pledged or otherwise encumbered (0.00% pledge).	OK	Capital Structure, p.88
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure', Risk Factors Why It Matters: Pledging signals financial stress. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any meaningful pledge = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.88
77	Promoter / KMP remuneration vs PAT and peers	FY26 Total Managerial Remuneration = ₹11.72 cr (16.43% of PAT: Pranav Ashar ₹4.11 cr, Ravi Ramalingam ₹3.52 cr). High absolute payout for mid-size developer.	Watch	Summary of RPTs, p.65; Our Management, p.252
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Cash extraction relative to profits. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High pay vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Summary of RPTs, p.65; Our Management, p.252
78	Group structure - complex / circular / many entities?	Simple and transparent: Only 2 direct subsidiaries (PCPL Infra, PCPL Foundation) with negligible assets (₹0.04 cr), and 2 identified group companies (Techsec Digital, En-Vision Design) not in competing real estate.	OK	Our Subsidiaries, p.244; Our Group Companies, p.269
Where in DRHP: 'Our Group Companies' Why It Matters: Complexity is where value and leakage hide. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Complex web = flag Exact Citation: Our Subsidiaries, p.244; Our Group Companies, p.269
79	Auditor - reputable? Recent change or resignation?	M S K A & Associates LLP (member firm of BDO International network, top-tier peer-reviewed firm). No change in statutory auditors during the last three years.	OK	General Information, p.72
Where in DRHP: 'Auditors', history Why It Matters: Audit credibility and any pre-IPO churn. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Resignation before IPO = flag Exact Citation: General Information, p.72
80	CFO / KMP churn before the IPO	Zero KMP churn: CFO Dilkhush Malesha with company since Jan 2023; CS Ritu Jain since Feb 2019; CSMO Akshay Kripalani since Aug 2019.	OK	Our Management, p.264
Where in DRHP: 'Management', history Why It Matters: Instability in key finance roles before listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: CFO exit pre-IPO = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.264
81	Board: proportion of independent directors	10 Directors: 4 Executive, 1 Non-Executive, 5 Independent Directors (50% independent board, 1 woman independent director). Fully compliant with SEBI ICDR / LODR.	OK	Our Management, p.246
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Strength of independent oversight. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Below norms = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.246
82	Independent-director credentials - real or token?	Prestigious credentials: all 5 Independent Directors are CAs, including Nihar Jambusaria (Past President of ICAI) and Sreedhar Muppala (ICAI Central Council member). All appointed July 30, 2024.	OK	Our Management, p.248-251
Where in DRHP: Director bios Why It Matters: Whether oversight is actually effective. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Token / related IDs = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p.248-251
83	ESOP / outstanding options - dilution overhang	Zero ESOP schemes or convertible instruments outstanding. No dilution overhang.	OK	Capital Structure, p.81, 93
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Future dilution of your stake. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large unvested pool = caution Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.81, 93
84	Lock-in: promoter and anchor / pre-IPO investors	20% post-issue promoter shareholding locked in for 3 years; balance promoter shares locked in for 6 months. Anchor investors: 50% locked for 30 days, 50% for 90 days.	OK	Capital Structure, p.84, 85, 87
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Share supply that hits the market post-listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big near-term unlocks = caution Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.84, 85, 87
85	Past corporate-governance issues / regulatory strictures	Zero disciplinary actions, warnings, or penalties by SEBI or Stock Exchanges against Company, Promoters, or Directors in the last 5 years.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.388, 389
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors, Litigation Why It Matters: A pattern of past behaviour. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any history = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.388, 389

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

86

Sales to related parties (% of revenue)

FY26: ₹Nil (0.00%). FY25: ₹Nil. FY24: ₹0.84 cr (0.18% of revenue from real estate development to Vaisshali Ashar and Krish Investment).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
₹Nil (0	₹Nil	₹0

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.65

87

Purchases from related parties (% of costs)

FY26: ₹0.41 cr (0.05% of revenue, professional fees to Techsec Digital Global). FY25: ₹0.78 cr. FY24: ₹0.12 cr. Minimal RPT operating expenses.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
₹0	₹0	₹0

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.65

88

Loans / advances to promoter or related entities

Company had heavy borrowing from Promoter Pranav Kiran Ashar in FY24 (loan taken ₹79.70 cr, repaid ₹71.75 cr) and FY25 (taken ₹25.50 cr, repaid ₹27.99 cr). Fully repaid in FY26 (outstanding ₹Nil).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
(loan taken ₹79	(taken ₹25	(outstanding ₹Nil)

Watch

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.66

89

Rent / royalty / brand fees paid to related parties

Zero brand royalty or trademark fees paid to promoters. Minor reimbursement of expenses (₹0.02 cr in FY26).

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.65, 66

90

Outstanding RPT balances (receivable / payable)

Year-end trade payables to related parties are negligible (₹0.16 cr in FY26). Promoter loan balance reduced from ₹20.49 cr in FY24 to ₹18.00 cr in FY25 to ₹Nil as of March 31, 2026.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY24	FY25	2026
)	to ₹18	to ₹Nil as of March 31	.

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.66, 67

91

RPT trend over 3 years

Significant reduction: aggregate RPT volume as % of revenue dropped sharply from 53.42% in FY24 to 11.32% in FY25 to 4.32% in FY26, reflecting substantial pre-IPO corporate cleanup.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
to 11	to 4	, reflecting substantial pre-IPO corporate cleanup

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.67

92

Disclosed at arm's length? Pricing basis?

Confirmed by management and auditors that all RPTs were entered into in the ordinary course of business and on an arm's length basis (Ind AS 24 Note 40).

OK

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.65; Restated Financials Note 40, p.319

93

Overall RPT concern level (Low / Medium / High)

Medium concern: RPTs have reduced drastically from 53.4% to 4.3% of revenue and promoter loans are fully repaid, but promoter personal guarantees (₹227.25 cr) and company housing loan guarantee (₹5.10 cr) remain active.

Watch

Summary of Related Party Transactions, p.65-67

LAYER 7 • LITIGATION & REGULATORY

Litigation, Tax Disputes & Materiality Sizing

Outstanding legal proceedings represent standard commercial and tax disputes with low aggregate materiality relative to net worth.

Outstanding Legal & Tax Dispute Summary

Litigation / Regulatory Category	Case Count	Quantifiable Exposure	Materiality & Balance Sheet Risk
Direct & Indirect Tax Proceedings (6 Company, 2 Promoters)	8	₹11.73 Cr	16.4% of FY26 PAT / 4.75% of Net Worth
Matrimonial Domestic Violence Case against Promoter Pranav Ashar	1	₹10.21 Cr claim	Borivali MM Court proceeding by estranged spouse
Civil & Property Dispute (Priyadarshini CHSL damages suit before Bombay HC)	1	₹10.00 Cr claim	CHSL meeting dispute & Laxman Tower stilt claim
Criminal Revision Application against Director Suneet Desai	1	₹0.02 Cr	Dindoshi Sessions Court tender dispute

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
94	Criminal cases against promoters / directors	1 case against Promoter Pranav Ashar under DV Act Sec 12 filed by estranged spouse claiming ₹10.21 cr (Borivali Court); 1 criminal revision application under Sec 397 CrPC against Director Suneet Desai regarding Siddhi Apts tender award.	Watch	Outstanding Litigation, p.389, 390; Risk Factors, p.31
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: An integrity red flag that can override the numbers. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.389, 390; Risk Factors, p.31
95	Material civil / commercial cases - company	2 material civil suits: (1) Laxman Tower CHSL stilt ownership dispute by P.L. Bhandari (unquantifiable); (2) Priyadarshini CHSL suit by Shakuntala Joshi & Ors before Bombay HC claiming ₹10.00 cr damages for alleged meeting irregularities.	Watch	Outstanding Litigation, p.388
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Direct business and financial risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.388
96	Direct + indirect tax disputes and amounts	6 tax proceedings against Company totaling ₹11.73 cr (₹117.25 mn), including ₹0.76 cr disputed income tax for AY 2017-18 before CIT(A); 2 tax proceedings against Promoters.	Watch	Outstanding Litigation, p.387, 391; Risk Factors, p.31
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Contingent cash outflows. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.387, 391; Risk Factors, p.31
97	Regulatory / statutory actions (SEBI, RBI, environmental, labour)	Zero regulatory or statutory actions initiated by SEBI, RBI, or stock exchanges against the Company, Promoters, or Directors.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.388-390
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Signals compliance culture. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Active actions = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.388-390
98	Total quantifiable amount involved	Total quantifiable litigation amounts to ~₹22.94 cr (Tax disputes against Company ₹11.73 cr + Matrimonial DV claim against Promoter ₹10.21 cr + Director case ₹0.02 cr + Priyadarshini suit ₹10.00 cr = ~₹32.96 cr gross).	Watch	Risk Factors, p.31; Outstanding Litigation, p.388-391
Where in DRHP: Litigation summary Why It Matters: Sizing the aggregate exposure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors, p.31; Outstanding Litigation, p.388-391
99	Materiality vs PAT and net worth	Tax disputes against company (₹11.73 cr) represent 16.44% of FY26 PAT (₹71.32 cr) and 4.75% of Net Worth (₹246.70 cr). Total quantifiable litigation represents ~46% of PAT and 13.4% of Net Worth.	Watch	Computed from Risk Factors, p.31; Restated Financials, p.60, 62
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Whether the exposure is survivable. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Multiple of PAT / net worth = flag Exact Citation: Computed from Risk Factors, p.31; Restated Financials, p.60, 62
100	Any case threatening a key licence or the business model?	No cases threatening company registration, RERA licenses, or corporate solvency. Priyadarshini and Laxman Tower civil suits could cause project-specific handover delays.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p.388-391
Where in DRHP: Litigation, Risk Factors Why It Matters: Existential risk to operations. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Yes = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p.388-391

LAYER 8 • VALUATION & PEER BENCHMARK

Valuation: Peer Comparison & Multiples Benchmark

Valuation benchmark indicates competitive pricing relative to listed industry peers and forward earnings power.

Listed Industry Peer Valuation Benchmark

Company Name / Peer Benchmark	P/E (x)	EV/EBITDA	P/S (x)	ROE (%)	ROCE (%)	YoY Growth	PAT Margin
Pranav Constructions Limited	29.3x	20.1x	3.1x	33.8%	24.3%	+30.5%	9.4%
Macrotech Developers (Lodha)	33.5x	24.2x	4.2x	15.7%	13.3%	+18.2%	12.1%
Godrej Properties Limited	33.3x	28.5x	5.1x	10.0%	12.9%	+24.1%	8.5%
Keystone Realtors (Rustomjee)	64.9x	38.4x	2.6x	3.3%	4.8%	+14.5%	4.2%
Suraj Estate Developers	9.9x	7.8x	2.3x	9.5%	14.4%	+22.0%	15.2%
Arkade Developers Limited	482.6x	32.0x	3.8x	0.6%	20.2%	+28.4%	16.4%

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
101	IPO P/E (post-issue, upper band)	Price band not finalized in RHP [●]. At secondary transfer price of ₹240 (Feb 2025), implied P/E is 29.34x based on FY26 Diluted EPS of ₹8.18.	Watch	Basis for Offer Price, p.124, 132; Capital Structure, p.91
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price / compute Why It Matters: The headline earnings multiple you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.124, 132; Capital Structure, p.91
102	Peer P/E - and is the peer set fair or cherry-picked?	Listed peers P/E: Arkade 482.6x, Keystone 64.9x, Kalpataru 56.6x, Lodha 33.5x, Godrej 33.3x, Suraj 9.9x, Kolte-Patil loss-making. Peer average is 113.46x; peer median is 33.48x. Peer set is relevant (all MMR/Western Suburbs developers).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: Companies pick flattering peers; rebuild the set yourself. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Cherry-picked rich peers = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126
103	EV / EBITDA vs peers	At ₹240 reference price, implied Enterprise Value is ~₹2,630 cr (Mcap ~₹2,382 cr + Net Debt ₹248 cr), representing ~20.10x FY26 EBITDA (₹130.83 cr), reasonably aligned with mid-cap real estate peers.	OK	Computed from Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated Financials, p.60
Where in DRHP: Compute / peers Why It Matters: A capital-structure-neutral comparison. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Computed from Basis for Offer Price, p.127; Restated Financials, p.60
104	Price / Sales (especially if loss-making)	Company is profitable. At ₹240 reference price, implied Price/Sales ratio is ~3.13x on FY26 Revenue (₹761.60 cr), compared to peers (Keystone ~2.6x, Suraj ~2.3x, Lodha ~4.2x).	OK	Computed from Basis for Offer Price, p.126; Restated P&L, p.62
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The relevant lens for unprofitable companies. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Aggressive P/S on losses = flag Exact Citation: Computed from Basis for Offer Price, p.126; Restated P&L, p.62
105	Price / Book	Pre-issue NAV per share is ₹28.30 (March 31, 2026). At ₹240 reference price, implied P/B is 8.48x (elevated due to historical low equity base, though book value will expand significantly post fresh issue).	Watch	Basis for Offer Price, p.125; Capitalisation Statement, p.337
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: Relevant for asset-heavy and financial businesses. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.125; Capitalisation Statement, p.337
106	Implied market cap at IPO	At ₹240 secondary transaction price, post-issue market cap is estimated at ~₹2,380 - 2,500 cr (assuming ~99.2 mn post-issue shares).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 132; Capital Structure, p.91
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The absolute size of what you're buying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 132; Capital Structure, p.91
107	ROE vs peers	Pranav FY26 RoNW of 33.78% (3-year weighted average 43.44%) significantly outclasses listed peers (Lodha 15.71%, Godrej 9.97%, Suraj 9.53%, Keystone 3.34%, Kalpataru 2.45%, Arkade 0.60%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does quality justify any premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + lower ROE = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.125, 126
108	ROCE vs peers	Pranav FY26 ROCE of 24.34% outperforms listed peer averages (Arkade 20.17%, Suraj 14.41%, Lodha 13.32%, Godrej 12.91%, Kolte-Patil 8.42%, Keystone 4.83%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.127, 130
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Capital efficiency relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.127, 130
109	Growth vs peers	Pranav 2-year revenue CAGR of 30.46% and PAT CAGR of 34.18% beat most established Mumbai peers, supported by aggressive redevelopment project procurement.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.124, 129, 130
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does faster growth justify the premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + slower growth = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.124, 129, 130
110	Margins vs peers	FY26 EBITDA margin (17.18%) and PAT margin (9.37%) are healthy and above peers like Kolte-Patil (13.24% EBITDA) and Keystone (16.05% EBITDA), but trail premium players like Lodha (31.76%) and Suraj (37.65%).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p.130
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Quality of earnings relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.130
111	IPO price vs WACA / pre-IPO placement (the markup)	Promoter WACA is ₹0.29 (Pranav Ashar) and ₹2.79 (Ravi Ramalingam); Investor BioUrja WACA is ₹42.55; Secondary transfers occurred at ₹240 in Feb 2025. Significant markup over promoter cost due to 2024-25 bonus issues.	Watch	Capital Structure, p.87, 91; Basis for Offer Price, p.132
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: What insiders paid versus what you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large multiple over WACA = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p.87, 91; Basis for Offer Price, p.132
112	Is the premium justified by ROCE / ROE / growth / margins?	Partially justified: Exceptional return metrics (33.78% ROE, 24.34% ROCE) and dominant Western Suburbs market share support peer-level valuation (~30x P/E), but negative operating cash flow (-₹128 cr over 3 yrs) requires a discount.	Watch	Basis for Offer Price, p.126-130; Restated Cash Flows, p.63
Where in DRHP: Synthesise Why It Matters: The core valuation verdict. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium unsupported by quality = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.126-130; Restated Cash Flows, p.63
113	What growth does the price implicitly assume?	Valuation assumes Pranav successfully converts its 20 under-construction (1.63 mn sq ft) and 17 upcoming projects into timely collections, reversing negative CFO into positive operating cash.	Watch	Basis for Offer Price, p.128; Our Business, p.204
Where in DRHP: Reverse the multiple / judgment Why It Matters: Are the embedded expectations realistic? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Heroic assumptions = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p.128; Our Business, p.204

LAYER 9 • STATED RISK ADMISSIONS

In The Company's Own Words: Stated Risk Admissions

Management highlights key operational sensitivities including raw material pricing, client concentration, and execution timelines.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
114	Top 5 risk factors the company itself lists	(1) Geographic concentration in MCGM/Western Suburbs (99.70% of revenue); (2) Project delay/completion risk triggering displacement compensation; (3) Unsold inventory and property price cycle risk; (4) Raw material price inflation (cement/steel); (5) High reliance on third-party contractors (Top 10 = 47.10%).	Watch	Risk Factors #1-#5, p.19-25
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: Management's own stated worries - read them first. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1-#5, p.19-25
115	Any genuine dealbreaker buried in boilerplate?	Severe cash burn: Cumulative 3-year CFO is negative -₹128.33 cr despite reported PAT of ₹173.20 cr, with ₹998.5 cr locked in Development Rights and ₹513.2 cr in unbilled Contract Assets under POCM accounting.	Flag	Risk Factors #8, p.27; Restated Cash Flows, p.63; Note 19, p.304
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The serious risks hide among generic ones; find them. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #8, p.27; Restated Cash Flows, p.63; Note 19, p.304
116	Quantified risks (e.g. 'X would cut revenue by Y%')	Top 10 material suppliers account for 61.78% of material costs; Top 10 contractors account for 47.10% of contractor spend; raw materials and construction costs represent 19.65% of total expenses; unquantified transit rent liability in case of project delays.	Watch	Risk Factors #4 & #5, p.24, 25
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The risks management bothered to quantify are usually the real ones. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #4 & #5, p.24, 25
117	Going-concern or liquidity language anywhere?	No going-concern qualification in statutory auditor report. Liquidity relies heavily on project advances (₹923.26 cr), short-term borrowings (₹253.44 cr), and successful deployment of IPO fresh issue proceeds.	OK	Auditor's Report, p.275; Restated Balance Sheet, p.60, 61
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors / Auditor Why It Matters: A direct signal of survival risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any going-concern language = serious flag Exact Citation: Auditor's Report, p.275; Restated Balance Sheet, p.60, 61

AUDIT TALLY • 117-CHECKPOINT RISK MATRIX

Red-Flag Dashboard: 117-Checkpoint Audit Tally

79

Checkpoints Clean (OK)

30

Watchlist Monitor Rows

7

High-Severity Red Flags

117

Total Forensic Checkpoints

L1 Story & Positioning

9 1 0

L2 Issue Structure & Objects

12 3 0

L3 Business Quality

11 5 2

L4 Financial Quality

19 5 4

L5 Governance

11 2 0

L6 Related Party Transactions

6 2 0

L7 Litigation & Regulatory

2 5 0

L8 Valuation

8 5 0

L9 The Company's Own Risk Factors

1 2 1

Layer 1: Story & Positioning

9 OK 1 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 2: Issue Structure & Objects

12 OK 3 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 3: Business Quality

11 OK 5 Watch 2 Flag

Layer 4: Financial Quality

19 OK 5 Watch 4 Flag

Layer 5: Governance

11 OK 2 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 6: Related Party Transactions

6 OK 2 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 7: Litigation & Regulatory

2 OK 5 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 8: Valuation

8 OK 5 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 9: The Company's Own Risk Factors

1 OK 2 Watch 1 Flag

How To Read This Risk Matrix

These tallies reflect the 117 checkpoints evaluated across the 9 analytical layers. In institutional forensic analysis, clusters matter far more than isolated totals: an amber or red flag in Layer 4 (Financial Quality) or Layer 5 (Governance) carries exponentially higher structural weight than narrative observations in Layer 1. Always evaluate flags against company peers and industry context.

Statutory Educational Compliance & Analyst Disclaimer

This research report is prepared strictly for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax, or underwriting advice. Neither IPrOspecta nor the author (Tanish Vijayvargiya) is a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or SEBI-registered Investment Adviser under the SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014 or SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013.

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an explicit or implicit recommendation, solicitation, endorsement, or offer to buy, sell, subscribe to, or hold any security, IPO application, or financial product. Prospective investors must conduct their own independent due diligence, carefully review the complete Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) / Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed with SEBI and the stock exchanges, and consult a qualified, SEBI-registered financial adviser before committing capital.

Position Disclosure: The author and IPrOspecta maintain zero commercial affiliation with the issuer company, book running lead managers, selling shareholders, or syndicate underwriters. All opinions expressed represent personal analytical frameworks.