"Sales are up. Where is the cash?"
Internal audit is not a certificate. It is the discipline of asking, transaction by transaction, whether the business's controls actually held — and doing something about it where they didn't. The people who lead this practice have completed 100+ internal and process audits across their careers, reviewing and protecting ₹50Cr of business value and financial exposure.
Below is the full list of audits we run, the symptoms each one answers, and what we have found before. What we bring is what a list cannot: the judgment to know where to look, and the follow-through to make findings stick.
Every one of these audits exists because an owner described the symptom first. The names are ours; the symptoms are theirs, kept in their own words.
| What you're seeing | What's usually behind it | The audit that answers it |
|---|---|---|
| Sales increase, cash flow decreases | Money blocked in billing, deductions, overdue receivables or collection follow-up | Order-to-cash (O2C) audit + receivables review |
| Gross profit stable, net profit weak | Hidden cost sitting in wastage, wrong valuation, overhead absorption or process loss | Inventory valuation + costing review |
| ERP reports available, decision-making weak | Data exists but never becomes reliable management insight | End-to-end process audit + management-reporting (MIS) review |
| Customer, product, job-work or vendor-side loss | Profit leaking in buyer, style, lot, job-work vendor or material-receipt flow | Process audit + third-party-manufacturing (TPM / job-work) audit |
| Pre-budget available, post-completion profit never reviewed | Quoted cost never compared with actual cost and shipment realisation | O2C audit + costing review |
| Repeated production delays | Planning errors, material delay, job-work delay, labour issues or machine bottlenecks | Production audit |
| Consumption regular, purchase cost increasing | Supplier rate variation, weak comparison or approval gaps | Procure-to-pay (P2P) audit + purchase-rate analysis |
| Accumulated losses in rejection, rework, seconds and shortage | Hidden operational losses eating actual profitability | Process audit + cost-leakage review |
| Job-work material sent, recovery not fully tracked | Sent, received, process loss, balance stock and recovery never fully reconciled | TPM / job-work audit |
| Best price not benchmarked with market standard | Purchase price sitting above market; supplier comparison weak | P2P audit + rate benchmarking |
| Vendor advances, debit notes, credit notes and old balances unclear | The supplier balance not reflecting the real payable position | Payables + vendor-reconciliation review |
| Book stock reliability doubtful | Physical stock, book stock and valuation not fully matching | Inventory audit + valuation review |
| Recurring losses without clear responsibility | Process ownership, approval responsibility and control checkpoints unclear | Process-control + responsibility review |
Our methodology for each of these is published below. Other proprietary methods are applied where the engagement calls for them.
Some owners arrive with no single symptom. Just the ask: "I need a 2–3% improvement in profit. Where is it?"
The Diagnostic Business Audit is built for exactly that question. We review the business end to end, find the priority areas where correcting leakage will actually move profitability, and hand you the list — ranked, with what each area needs. From there you choose what to fix, and with whom.
It is the smallest way to engage us, and the fastest way to find out what working with us is like.
Start with the diagnostic →Across 100+ internal audits, the people who lead this practice identified the control risks below and put the fixes in — ₹50Cr of strategic business value reviewed and protected across revenue, procurement, working capital, leakage, automation and compliance. The companies stay unnamed; the scenarios are the point — you will recognise some of them.
Weak customer credit limits left receivables exposed. We established maker-checker credit approval, putting a second pair of eyes between an order and the risk.
Single-vendor dependency was quietly driving procurement cost up. We introduced competitive sourcing on a 50:30:20 vendor-allocation strategy.
Aged inventory had business funds locked in stock nobody was watching. We implemented structured consumption and liquidation plans.
Unauthorised payments created financial leakage risk. We strengthened approved-beneficiary validation, so money moves only to vetted hands.
Manual production tracking limited operational visibility. We initiated a QR-based production MIS — live data instead of end-of-day guesses.
Job-worker legal and EHS gaps created compliance exposure. We wrote mandatory compliance clauses into every agreement.
Total strategic business value reviewed and protected — ₹50Cr. The figure is an indicative allocation of value and exposure reviewed — not booked profit or realised savings.
A tax department notice arrived demanding ₹3.02Cr. The notice was wrong — but proving a notice wrong is not a matter of saying so. We matched everything: every record the assessment touched, line by line. The disputed liability came down from crores to tens of lakhs — a fraction of the original demand. The difference between those two numbers is what a complete, defensible set of records is worth on the day someone official disagrees with you.
Every business already runs these processes. This is what we examine inside each.
Vendor selection and rate approval · purchase order against GRN against invoice · rate and quantity deviations · duplicate and split invoices · payment terms actually applied versus agreed · defective-supply recovery and purchase returns.
Order to invoice to collection · pricing and discount application against masters · credit exposure and ageing · commission workings against the sales they reward · scheme and claim validation.
Physical stock against book stock · ageing and slow-moving identification · valuation · job-work and third-party movement reconciliation · lot-, item- and process-wise costing against believed costing.
The published methodology is the floor, not the ceiling — proprietary methods are applied where the engagement warrants them. The value is not the list. It is what a trained eye does with it.
The ACFE — the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the profession's global body — estimates in its Report to the Nations (2024) that organisations lose about 5% of revenue to fraud each year. That is their number, not ours — ours are the figures above. Together they say the same thing: leakage is not an exception that happens to badly run companies. It is a base rate, and it responds to scrutiny.
ACFE, Report to the Nations, 2024
An audit report is not an end result. A finding that sits in a PDF while the same leak reopens next quarter has changed nothing.
So we don't audit and hand over. We stay until the finding stops being possible — above all with the right software and the right control points built into it, so the deviation is caught the day it happens rather than the year after. Where the fix takes more — training the people who run the process, or reshaping how the work is owned — we do that too, as part of making the result real. That discipline came from our own practice: years of monthly inventory audits taught us that findings without follow-through change nothing, so we engineered the follow-through.
Bring us the area that worries you. From there, it's ours to close.
— the ranked answer to "where is my 2–3%?"