Manager - Finance & Accounts
                
                   58560 Points
                   Joined June 2010
                
               
			  
			  
             
            
             Hey Yasaswi! Your table is a nice start for classifying intangible asset valuation under Ind AS.
To clarify, Ind AS 38 - Intangible Assets provides guidance on recognition and measurement but does not prescribe a fixed valuation method like Income, Market, or Cost approach for specific types of intangibles. Instead, the valuation depends on the nature of the asset and available evidence.
Here’s a quick breakdown on valuation approaches generally accepted under Ind AS 38:
| Intangible Asset | 
Common Valuation Approach(es) | 
| Patents | 
Income approach (based on future cash flows), Market approach (if comparables exist), or Cost approach | 
| Technology | 
Income, Market or Cost approach - depending on circumstances | 
| Copyrights | 
Similar to patents, often Income or Cost approach | 
| Internally Developed | 
Usually Cost approach (development cost capitalized), sometimes Income approach if reliable cash flows can be estimated | 
| Brand Names | 
Usually Income approach (royalty savings method or excess earnings) or Market approach (comparables) | 
| Customer Relations | 
Cost approach or Income approach (based on projected earnings from customer base) | 
 
 
Key points:
- 
Income approach is widely used for valuation of intangible assets expected to generate economic benefits (e.g., brand names, customer relations, patents).
 
- 
Market approach is used when there are active markets or comparable transactions.
 
- 
Cost approach is often used for internally developed assets or when cost reflects fair value better (e.g., development costs).
 
So, your table is a good summary of typical approaches, but:
- 
Ind AS doesn’t mandate fixed valuation methods per asset type.
 
- 
The choice depends on the facts, circumstances, and professional judgment.
 
- 
Disclosures about valuation method used are essential.