India is the largest company-filing jurisdiction in this series, and it is not close. Every company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 must file its financial statements with the Registrar of Companies every year — no size exemption, no ownership-structure escape hatch, and no relief for a company that did no business at all. With over 2 million active companies on the register all carrying that duty, India's obligated filing population dwarfs Korea's 37,519 audited filers — and, unlike Japan, which imposes a comparable duty on a comparable population and sees 1.8% compliance, India backs it with an uncapped daily penalty. Those filings are publicly inspectable: Section 399 of the Companies Act gives any person, on payment of a nominal fee, the right to view or obtain certified copies of a company's filed documents. The larger tier files in XBRL. The friction in India is not availability or legal right of access — it is that the register is vast, retrieval is per-document, and compliance quality varies enormously across a population that size.
MCA21: the register and the right of access
MCA21 is the flagship e-governance platform of India's Ministry of Corporate Affairs, launched in 2006 as one of the National e-Governance Plan's Mission Mode Projects. Its statutory foundation is the Companies Act, 2013 (previously the 1956 Act), which mandates filing of incorporation documents, annual returns, financial statements, and event-based changes with the Registrar of Companies (RoC). The platform migrated to its V3 generation, with the final tranche of forms — including the annual filings — moving to web-based V3 forms and AOC-4 and MGT-7 becoming mandatory in V3 format from 14 July 2025.
Section 399: the access right that defines Indian company data
A statutory right, not a policy choice
The distinctive feature of Indian company data is that public access is written into the Companies Act itself. Under Section 399, any person may, on payment of a prescribed fee, inspect the documents kept by the Registrar or obtain certified copies of them. Not shareholders, not creditors, not regulated persons — any person.
That single provision puts India in a different category from most of Asia. Hong Kong routes private accounts to a confidential tax filing. Japan has a publication duty that 98% of companies ignore. Taiwan requires audits and keeps the results for ministry inspection. India grants a statutory inspection right over the filed record and then requires essentially every company to file into it. MCA21 is consequently a primary open registry for due diligence and credit work, used by lenders, counterparties, diplomats vetting Indian entities, and analysts — without recourse to intermediaries.
Access and cost
- Master Data is viewable without login — company name, CIN, status, registration date, registered office, authorised and paid-up capital, directors, and charge details.
- Filed documents — financial statements, annual returns, incorporation documents — are retrieved through the View Public Documents facility on payment of the prescribed fee under Section 399, with certified copies available.
- Payment is online only (card or net banking) on the V3 portal.
- Every company carries a CIN — the 21-character Corporate Identity Number, which encodes listing status, industry code, state, year of incorporation, ownership class, and a sequential registration number. It is a single national key and, unusually, partially self-describing.
- English throughout. India is the only major Asian jurisdiction in this series where the register operates natively in English — no transliteration problem, no script-matching failure mode.
Get financial data for private and public companies via API or in bulk — with regular updates
MonetaiQ delivers registry-sourced company financials as clean, normalised fields — income statement, balance sheet, equity, and status — in consistent English across our European coverage, alongside entity and public-filer data for Asia-Pacific and North America. Where registry financials exist we structure them; where compliance is uneven, we say so, so your coverage assumptions match reality. Available via REST API, bulk feeds, or our MCP server to query the data directly inside Claude, ChatGPT, and other LLMs.
The corporate landscape and its regulators
The sectoral shape
India's corporate value concentrates in a handful of areas, several of which are globally significant:
- Information technology and business services — TCS, Infosys, Wipro, HCL: the sector that defined India's global corporate profile, with a deep base of mid-sized private suppliers that all file.
- Diversified conglomerates — Reliance, the Tata group, the Aditya Birla group, Adani: sprawling multi-sector groups whose subsidiaries file individually, so group structures are traceable through the register.
- Pharmaceuticals — one of the world's largest generic-medicine industries.
- Automotive and components, banking and financial services, energy and infrastructure, and a very large textiles and consumer goods base.
The data-relevant point is the group structure. Because every subsidiary files its own AOC-4 — and consolidated statements go in AOC-4 CFS — Indian conglomerate structures are unusually traceable from the filed record, in contrast to Hong Kong or Taiwan where the subsidiaries publish nothing.
Who regulates what
- Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) — the Companies Act, the Registrar of Companies, and MCA21.
- SEBI — the securities regulator, governing listed-company disclosure through the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements regime.
- Reserve Bank of India (RBI) — central bank and supervisor of banks and NBFCs, which file sector-specific variants such as AOC-4 NBFC.
- NFRA — the National Financial Reporting Authority, the independent audit regulator established after major audit failures, with powers over auditors of large and listed companies.
- ICAI — the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the professional body for the auditors who sign every Indian company's accounts.
- IBBI — the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, discussed below.
Listed companies therefore carry a dual reporting burden: the statutory MCA filing and the SEBI/exchange disclosure regime, with quarterly results, shareholding patterns, and continuous material-event reporting to the BSE and NSE. As in Greece and Korea, a complete dataset for Indian listed companies has two collection targets.
Private companies: how many, and how many file
The scale of the register
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs publishes company statistics through its Corporate Data Management portal, and the figures are unlike anything else in this series:
| Measure | Figure |
|---|---|
| Active companies doing business | Over 20 lakh — more than 2 million |
| Inactive share of total registered | 30% |
| In strike-off or liquidation | 1.12% |
| Dormant status | 0.08% |
| Traditional private and public companies | ~90% of active entities |
| OPCs, Section 8, Nidhi, Producer Companies | ~10% of active entities |
| New registrations, FY2024-25 (to 30 Nov) | 1,12,962 |
A measurement caveat worth stating plainly
The figure above is the population required to file, not the population that did. India does not publish a headline compliance rate the way Tokyo Shoko Research measured Japan's, and this guide will not estimate one — the two numbers are different things, and comparing one country's obligation against another's compliance manufactures a gap that may not exist.
What can be said is that the incentive structures differ sharply. Japan's penalty is a fine on directors that is almost never applied; India's is ₹100 per day per form with no ceiling, and it accrues automatically. The existence of periodic amnesty schemes confirms a real Indian backlog, so actual compliance is certainly below 100% — but the enforcement design gives India a structural reason to expect a far higher rate than Japan's 1.8%. If you need India's true filing rate, the MCA publishes filing records under Section 137; take the number from there rather than from any secondary source, including this one.
What every company must file
The annual cycle is anchored to the Annual General Meeting, which must be held within six months of the financial year end — by 30 September for the standard April–March year.
| Form | Contains | Statutory basis | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| AOC-4 | Financial statements, Board's Report, Auditor's Report, related-party annexure | Section 137 | 30 days of the AGM |
| AOC-4 XBRL | The same, in machine-readable XBRL | Section 137 | 30 days of the AGM |
| AOC-4 CFS | Consolidated financial statements, where the company has subsidiaries | Section 137 | 30 days of the AGM |
| MGT-7 | Annual return — shareholding, directors, board meetings, indebtedness, penalties | Section 92 | 60 days of the AGM |
| MGT-7A | Abridged annual return | Section 92 | 60 days — for OPCs and small companies (paid-up capital ≤ ₹4 crore and turnover ≤ ₹40 crore) |
| ADT-1 · DIR-3 KYC · CSR-2 | Auditor appointment, director KYC, CSR expenditure | Companies Act, 2013 | Various; CSR-2 is a linked form with AOC-4 from FY2024-25 |
India's annual filing cycle
The cycle applies to every company, from the first financial year after incorporation, regardless of whether it traded.
Two things that make India's regime unusually complete
First, the obligation begins in the very first financial year after incorporation and applies regardless of activity. A newly incorporated company with zero transactions must still file AOC-4 and MGT-7. There is no dormancy exemption from filing of the kind Hong Kong, Norway, and Australia provide — dormant status in India is a separate registered condition, not a filing waiver.
Second, note what the small company concession actually does. A small company (paid-up capital up to ₹4 crore and turnover up to ₹40 crore) may file the abridged MGT-7A annual return instead of MGT-7. It does not get relief from AOC-4. In other words, India's size concession simplifies the ownership return, not the financial statements — the opposite of the European pattern, where small companies file abridged accounts but full ownership data. For a data consumer this is favourable: the financial statement is the thing that does not get abridged.
The enforcement mechanism: ₹100 a day, uncapped
India's late-filing penalty has a design feature that is rare and severe: an additional fee of ₹100 per day of delay, per form, with no maximum limit. Ordinary filing fees are modest — ₹200 to ₹600 per document depending on authorised share capital — so the penalty quickly dwarfs the fee itself. A company two years late on both AOC-4 and MGT-7 accrues roughly ₹1.46 lakh in additional fees alone, and continued default can attract legal action.
The government has periodically offered amnesty. The Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026), extended to 31 August 2026, lets companies with pending AOC-4 or MGT-7/7A filings pay just 10% of the additional fee with conditional immunity from prosecution if filed within the scheme window.
Why amnesty schemes matter for your data
The existence of a compliance facilitation scheme is itself informative, and it cuts both ways. It tells you that a meaningful population of Indian companies is behind on filings — universal obligation does not mean universal compliance at a register of two million-plus. But it also means that filing volumes spike during amnesty windows, as backlogs clear.
The practical instruction: when measuring Indian filing coverage or building a completeness metric, check whether the period you are measuring overlaps a facilitation scheme. A jump in filings during 2026 reflects CCFS-2026, not a change in Indian corporate behaviour — the same segmentation discipline the Greece guide applies to its January 2026 enforcement date.
Public companies and the XBRL tier
India applies XBRL not to listed companies alone but to a defined tier by size — which means a substantial population of unlisted Indian companies files machine-readable financial statements.
Who files in XBRL
India has more machine-readable private company financials than any other Asian market
This is the point most analyses of Indian data miss. The XBRL tier is not "listed companies," it is listed companies plus their Indian subsidiaries plus every company above ₹5 crore paid-up capital or ₹100 crore turnover. Those thresholds catch a large unlisted population — India's mid-market — and produce structured, tagged, comparable financial statements for companies that would publish nothing at all in Hong Kong or Taiwan and only a Gazette balance sheet in Japan.
Combined with the Section 399 inspection right, this makes India the only Asian jurisdiction that delivers universal filing, statutory public access, and machine-readable format for the significant tier simultaneously. The catch is retrieval: there is no free bulk download of the financial statements themselves, so scale means per-document fees or a provider.
Listed companies and the second regulator
Listed companies carry a parallel obligation to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the exchanges — the BSE and NSE — including quarterly results, shareholding patterns, and continuous material-event disclosure under the SEBI Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements regime. As with Greece and Korea, a complete dataset for Indian listed companies has two collection targets: MCA21 for the corporate and statutory record, and the exchanges plus SEBI for market disclosure. The exchange filings arrive faster and more frequently; the MCA filing is the statutory one.
Accounting standards
India applies Ind AS — Indian Accounting Standards, converged with IFRS — to listed companies and larger unlisted companies on a phased applicability basis, with smaller companies continuing under the earlier Accounting Standards (AS) framework. Ind AS is converged with rather than identical to IFRS, carrying a number of carve-outs, so Indian statements are broadly comparable with European IFRS filings but not perfectly so — closer than Japanese GAAP, less exact than Korea's K-IFRS or Taiwan's T-IFRS endorsement approach.
Audit is a live and substantive part of the Indian regime: every company requires a statutory audit by a Chartered Accountant, and the audit report accompanies AOC-4 into the public record. That is a meaningful contrast with the UK, Ireland, and the Nordics, where large populations of small companies file unaudited accounts.
Insolvency: the IBC and what it reveals
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is among independent India's most consequential economic reforms. Passed by the Lok Sabha on 5 May 2016 and notified on 28 May 2016, it replaced a tangle of eight separate laws with a single, time-bound, creditor-in-control framework covering companies, LLPs, partnership firms, and individuals.
- The regulator is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), established on 1 October 2016 under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
- The adjudicating authority for companies is the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which has 14 days to admit or reject an application or give reasons for delay.
- The trigger is a default of at least ₹1 crore, after which either the creditor or the debtor may initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 6.
- The timeline was amended to require completion within 330 days, up from the original 180 plus 90.
- Section 29A restricts defaulting promoters from bidding to reacquire their own companies through the process.
- IBBI publishes case data, including resolution plan approvals, and its records are available through its own site and the national open data platform.
An insolvency problem that proves the article's point
One recurring criticism of the IBC is directly relevant to why filed financial data matters. Practitioners and parliamentary committees have identified data unavailability — the absence of key records such as audited accounts and fixed asset registers — as a factor that impedes determination of creditors' claims and valuation of the company during resolution.
In other words, even in a jurisdiction with universal filing obligations, the cases that reach insolvency are disproportionately the ones where the filings were not kept current. That is a useful signal in itself: a company whose AOC-4 history has gaps is not merely non-compliant on paperwork — non-filing correlates with the conditions that produce distress. Filing currency is a credit variable in India, not just a compliance checkbox, and it is one you can observe directly from the register.
Shell companies and register hygiene
At a register of this size, data quality is a first-order concern rather than a footnote, and the Indian authorities have been unusually active about it. The MCA has run large-scale strike-off drives against non-compliant and shell companies, and has disqualified directors associated with persistent non-filing — a director disqualification regime that bars individuals from board positions across all companies, not just the offending one.
The register's own status fields tell the story, and they are the practical tool:
| Status | Share of registered companies | What it means for your data |
|---|---|---|
| Active | ~70% — over 2 million companies | The working population. Filing obligations apply. |
| Inactive | 30% | Not operating. Excluding these is the single most important filter on any Indian dataset. |
| Under strike-off or liquidation | 1.12% | Being removed, or in an insolvency process. |
| Dormant | 0.08% | A registered status, not a filing exemption. |
Always filter on status first
A raw MCA21 extract overstates the operating Indian economy by nearly half, because 30% of registered companies are inactive. Any count, market sizing, or coverage metric built without a status filter will be wrong by a wide margin — and the error runs in the flattering direction, which makes it easy to miss.
Two further practical points. Director disqualification is a company-independent signal: a disqualified director appearing on a counterparty's board is a red flag sourced from a different compliance failure entirely. And because strike-off drives are periodic and policy-driven, a fall in the active count between two dates may reflect an administrative clean-up rather than economic contraction — the same segmentation caution that applies to India's amnesty windows.
Four pitfalls in Indian financial data workflows
Pitfall 1: Assuming universal filing means universal compliance
Every company must file, but at a register of two million-plus a meaningful population runs behind — which is why compliance facilitation schemes exist. Treat filing currency as a field to check per company, not an assumption to apply across the register.
Pitfall 2: Confusing authorised with paid-up capital
The XBRL threshold and much else keys on paid-up capital, while filing fees key on authorised capital. A company with ₹10 crore authorised but ₹3 crore paid-up is outside the XBRL tier. Capture both figures separately.
Pitfall 3: Missing the small-company nuance
The small-company concession gives the abridged MGT-7A annual return, not relief from AOC-4. Indian small companies still file full financial statements — so do not exclude them from a financial dataset the way you would in most European jurisdictions.
Pitfall 4: Measuring coverage across an amnesty window
Filing volumes spike during compliance facilitation schemes as backlogs clear. A rise in filings during a scheme window reflects the scheme, not company behaviour. Segment any time series around scheme dates.
How India compares
| Jurisdiction | Private filing | Public access right | Machine-readable |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | Universal — 2m+ companies, audited | Statutory, §399 — any person | XBRL above ₹5cr capital / ₹100cr turnover |
| South Korea | ~37,519 audited filers | Yes, free on DART | XBRL for listed |
| Japan | Required; 1.8% comply | Gazette, in principle | EDINET, listed only |
| Taiwan | Audited, not published | No | MOPS, listed only |
| Denmark | All limited companies | Yes, free | XBRL, all filers |
On the rules, India is closer to Denmark than to any of its Asian neighbours — universal filing, statutory public access, audited statements, structured format for the significant tier. Where it differs from the northern European model is on delivery rather than principle: Denmark hands you free XBRL through an open API, while India requires per-document retrieval at scale across a register a hundred times larger. India's constraint is logistics; most of Asia's is law. That is a much better problem to have.
MonetaiQ vs MCA21: what each is for
| Dimension | MCA21 | MonetaiQ |
|---|---|---|
| Legal authority | Authoritative — certified copies under Section 399 | Derived — not a substitute for a certified copy |
| Master data | Free without login — CIN, status, capital, directors, charges | Same fields, normalised across jurisdictions |
| Private company financials | Available — universal filing, audited, inspectable under §399 | Same data, parsed into a common schema |
| Retrieval at scale | Per-document fee; no free bulk download of financial statements | API, bulk feed, and MCP server |
| Language | English natively — no transliteration problem | English, with cross-country field harmonisation |
| Cross-border comparability | Ind AS or AS presentation, Indian record only | Normalised alongside IFRS and other frameworks |
| Filing currency | Visible per company; must be checked individually | Tracked as a field across the portfolio |
When MCA21 is enough — and it often is
India's free tier is better than its reputation. Master Data is viewable without login, giving you CIN, status, incorporation date, registered office, authorised and paid-up capital, directors, and charges at no cost. For a single-company check — does it exist, is it active, who runs it, what is it capitalised at, does it have charges registered — go to MCA21 and pay nothing.
The commercial case in India is squarely about scale, and it is a genuine one here in a way it is not in Denmark. The financial statements exist and you have a statutory right to them, but there is no free bulk download, so a portfolio of a thousand Indian counterparties means a thousand paid retrievals and a thousand documents to parse. Normalising Ind AS alongside IFRS filings, tracking filing currency across a portfolio, and delivering it through one interface is where a provider earns its place. Unlike Hong Kong or Taiwan, though, nobody in India has to tell you the data does not exist — it does.
Looking to build financial AI agents, or need financial data to train your AI models?
MonetaiQ delivers registry-sourced company financials — balance sheets, profit and loss, equity, entity type, and status — as clean, normalised, structured data built for machine consumption. Deep European coverage across the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, and more, in consistent English-language fields. Get it in bulk for model training, via API for live agent workflows, or through our MCP server — plug verified company financials straight into Claude, ChatGPT, or any MCP-compatible agent, so your model reasons over registry-sourced data instead of guessing.
Frequently asked questions
Are Indian company financial statements public?
Yes, and by statutory right. Every company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 must file financial statements annually with the Registrar of Companies in Form AOC-4, and under Section 399 any person may, on payment of a prescribed fee, inspect the documents kept by the Registrar or obtain certified copies. With over 2 million active companies all required to file, India has by far the largest public company financial record in Asia.
What is AOC-4?
The prescribed form under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 through which a company files its financial statements with the Registrar of Companies, together with the Board's Report, Auditor's Report, and related-party annexure. It must be filed within 30 days of the Annual General Meeting. Companies with subsidiaries file AOC-4 CFS for consolidated statements, and companies above the thresholds file AOC-4 XBRL.
What is the difference between AOC-4 and MGT-7?
AOC-4 is the financial statement filing under Section 137, due within 30 days of the AGM. MGT-7 is the annual return under Section 92 — shareholding pattern, directors, board meetings, indebtedness, and penalties — due within 60 days. One is a financial snapshot, the other a structural and ownership snapshot. Both are mandatory every year regardless of whether the company traded, and filing one does not excuse the other.
Do small Indian companies have to file financial statements?
Yes. The small company concession — for companies with paid-up capital up to ₹4 crore and turnover up to ₹40 crore — allows the abridged MGT-7A annual return instead of MGT-7. It does not provide relief from AOC-4. Indian small companies still file full financial statements, which is the opposite of the European pattern where small companies file abridged accounts but full ownership data.
Do dormant Indian companies have to file?
Yes. Filing obligations begin from the very first financial year after incorporation and apply regardless of activity — a newly incorporated company with zero transactions must still file AOC-4 and MGT-7. There is no dormancy exemption from filing of the kind Hong Kong, Norway, and Australia provide; dormant status in India is a separate registered condition rather than a filing waiver.
Which Indian companies must file in XBRL?
All listed companies and their Indian subsidiaries, any company with paid-up capital of ₹5 crore or more, any company with turnover of ₹100 crore or more, and companies applying Ind AS. Note that the test uses paid-up capital rather than authorised capital. Small companies with paid-up capital up to ₹4 crore and turnover up to ₹40 crore are generally exempt unless listed or applying Ind AS, and may file XBRL voluntarily.
What are the penalties for late filing in India?
An additional fee of ₹100 per day of delay per form, with no maximum limit — an unusually severe design, since ordinary filing fees are only ₹200 to ₹600 per document depending on authorised share capital. Continued default can attract legal action. The Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, extended to 31 August 2026, allows companies with pending AOC-4 or MGT-7/7A filings to pay just 10% of the additional fee with conditional immunity if filed within the window.
How much does it cost to get an Indian company's financial statements?
Master Data — company name, CIN, status, registration date, registered office, authorised and paid-up capital, directors, and charges — is viewable free without login on MCA21. Filed documents including financial statements are retrieved through the View Public Documents facility on payment of the prescribed fee under Section 399, with certified copies available. Payment is online only. There is no free bulk download of financial statements.
What is a CIN?
The Corporate Identity Number, a 21-character identifier carried by every Indian company. It is unusually informative because it is partially self-describing, encoding listing status, industry code, state of registration, year of incorporation, ownership class, and a sequential registration number. It serves as the single national key across MCA21.
Do Indian companies use IFRS?
India applies Ind AS, the Indian Accounting Standards converged with IFRS, to listed companies and larger unlisted companies on a phased applicability basis, with smaller companies continuing under the earlier Accounting Standards framework. Ind AS is converged with rather than identical to IFRS and carries a number of carve-outs, so Indian statements are broadly comparable with European IFRS filings but not perfectly so.
Are Indian company accounts audited?
Yes. Every company requires a statutory audit by a Chartered Accountant, and the audit report accompanies the AOC-4 filing into the public record. This contrasts with the UK, Ireland, and the Nordics, where large populations of small companies file unaudited accounts, and means the Indian filed record carries an audit opinion across the board.
How does insolvency work in India?
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which replaced eight separate laws with a single time-bound creditor-in-control framework covering companies, LLPs, partnership firms, and individuals. The regulator is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, established on 1 October 2016 under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the adjudicating authority for companies is the National Company Law Tribunal. A default of at least ₹1 crore allows either creditor or debtor to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which must complete within 330 days, and Section 29A restricts defaulting promoters from bidding to reacquire their own companies.
How many Indian companies are inactive?
About 30% of registered companies, according to the MCA Corporate Data Management portal — of which 1.12% are in strike-off or liquidation and 0.08% carry dormant status. Over 2 million companies are active and doing business. Filtering on status is the single most important step in any Indian dataset: a raw register extract overstates the operating economy by nearly half, and the error runs in the flattering direction.
What is a shell company strike-off in India?
The MCA has run large-scale strike-off drives against non-compliant and shell companies, removing them from the register, and has disqualified directors associated with persistent non-filing. Director disqualification bars individuals from board positions across all companies, not just the offending one, so a disqualified director on a counterparty's board is a red flag sourced from a separate compliance failure. Note that because strike-off drives are periodic and policy-driven, a fall in the active company count between two dates may reflect administrative clean-up rather than economic contraction.
Does filing history tell you anything about Indian credit risk?
Yes, more than in most jurisdictions. Practitioners and parliamentary committees have identified data unavailability — missing audited accounts and fixed asset registers — as a factor impeding claim determination and valuation during insolvency resolution. The cases reaching insolvency are disproportionately those where filings were not kept current, so a company with gaps in its AOC-4 history is not merely behind on paperwork: non-filing correlates with the conditions that produce distress. Filing currency is observable directly from MCA21.
How does India compare with the rest of Asia for company data?
India has by far the largest and most open private company financial record in Asia. Its filing population of over 2 million is roughly fifty times Korea's 37,519 audited filers or Japan's 40,214 Gazette publications, and Hong Kong and Taiwan publish no private financials at all. On the rules India is closer to Denmark than to its neighbours — universal filing, statutory public access, audited statements, and XBRL for the significant tier. The difference is delivery: Denmark provides free XBRL through an open API, while India requires per-document retrieval across a far larger register.
