When I compare the P&L report, Tax P&L report, and Verified P&L for the same period, all three show significantly different profit figures — with discrepancies going as high as ₹7–8 lakhs.
I understand that the Verified P&L does not account for taxes and charges, so a minor variance is expected and perfectly acceptable. However, in my case, the difference is far from minor and raises serious concerns.
Ideally, the LTCG and STCG reflected in the Tax P&L should broadly align with the profit shown in the P&L and Verified P&L reports, with only marginal differences due to charges, fees, and taxes. A variance of over ₹7 lakhs for the same period is difficult to justify.
I’ve already raised this with Zerodha but haven’t received a satisfactory explanation so far. I’m keen to understand — what do other traders make of such discrepancies?
Hi Shailesh, underlying data for P&L, Tax P&L and Verified P&L is same, except how we show the figures, for example P&L would show gross figures whereas Verified is net. We’ll review your ticket and reach out.
As per our discussion, I understand that the P&L report reflects gross profit, while the Verified P&L reflects net profit, which can lead to minor differences due to taxes and charges — that part is clear.
However, as you explained, the (cost prices of) transferred shares are treated differently across the P&L, Tax P&L, and Verified P&L reports. If these prices are not handled consistently across all three, it raises serious concerns about the credibility of the Verified P&L report.
Once again, thank you. I look forward to your review and a possible resolution.
We’re excluding the user-entered external trade details for the transferred stocks only from the verified P&L, because there’s no way to validate the numbers. Since Verified P&L is publicly shared, we must ensure we present data that is validated and calculated by our systems. Hope this clarifies.
I understand the rationale behind your approach. When the cost of transferred shares is excluded from the Verified P&L, and the cost of sold shares isn’t considered, it can significantly inflate profits — especially for large-cap stocks.
In contrast, transferred shares and their cost prices are appropriately accounted for in the regular P&L and Tax P&L reports, which I believe is the correct and consistent approach.
The key point I want to emphasise is this: why isn’t the same methodology applied to the Verified P&L?
As it stands, this creates a loophole in the Verified P&L generation process, leading to fundamentally misleading results. For example, a trader could transfer large-cap shares into a Zerodha account, sell them, and the Verified P&L could reflect substantial profits — even if, in reality, there was no gain or even a loss.
If this approach continues, it undermines the credibility, reliability, and usefulness of the Verified P&L report. I say this with emphasis — I would find it difficult to trust Zerodha’s Verified P&L, or similar reports from any broker, under such conditions.
My concern is not merely the mismatch in profit figures across the three reports. The real issue is that the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Verified P&L itself are at stake.
I would also encourage other traders to share their perspectives. Am I the only one seeing it this way, or do others share these concerns?
I hope the seriousness of this concern is fully recognized.
Actually it is other way around, it is called “verified pnl” , how can we say it is verified when we can’t? few users may add random buy averages to inflate profits and these are shared across to lure new investors to follow them or to buy their courses.
If Zerodha, or any broker, ignores transferred shares in the Verified P&L and does not apply the same cost-treatment logic used in the Regular P&L and Tax P&L (whether driven by SEBI/IT compliance or otherwise), it raises serious concerns about the credibility of the Verified P&L.
Whatever methodology is followed for transferred shares in the Regular P&L and Tax P&L must be applied consistently to the Verified P&L as well. Otherwise, the Verified P&L risks losing its very purpose.
Since Zerodha has confirmed that it will not change the process used to generate the Verified P&L, a word of caution: the profit shown in the Verified P&L (from Zerodha — and possibly other brokers) may be inflated by the full sale proceeds of securities that were transferred in from another broker.
This effectively creates a seemingly “authentic” way — given that it appears in a verified P&L report by broker itself — to inflate or overstate profits. In contrast, the Tax P&L and Regular P&L reflect more accurate figures, as brokers are required by SEBI/IT regulations to consider fair market value for transferred shares.
What’s puzzling is that the same fair-value approach isn’t applied to the Verified P&L. That inconsistency raises valid concerns.
As customers, there’s little we can do beyond highlighting such issues in public forums and urging greater transparency.
So, a caution to all: Verified P&L reports, especially when shared publicly, may not always reflect the complete picture. They can be used — intentionally or otherwise — to present inflated performance and attract potential investors. Consider this a fair warning.
We don’t include sale proceeds if shares are transferred, so in simple words entry and exits of share transfers are not included in verified pnl. So, there is no point of inflated numbers. If you still have any doubts please DM me your ID, I can arrange a call to clear them.
@siva but removing them from verified pnl is also not a good thing If any investor shifted from another broker to zerodha and genuinely entered correct price it is not fair by zerodha to not include that shares in verified pnl instead this zerodha can mark those shares or those trades as external and tag them as external or transferred or you can simply add danger like sign against it and can add any tag stating that this is not verified by zerodha as it is external trade and value is manually entered by user.
@Arun4 There is a reason it is called as zerodha verified P&L. what are you suggesting could be used as loophole to show a different scenario using zerodha name,
It would be extra effort to show those numbers which are not verified & then zerodha cant use the tag as verified p&l.
It does not appear to be the case — and the evidence lies in the actual outcome.
I had Reliance shares transferred to my Zerodha account, and through regular trading activity (buy/sell), my Verified P&L has been inflated by ₹7–8 lakhs. This appears to be solely due to the methodology where the cost price of transferred shares is treated as zero in the Verified P&L calculation.
While I understand that different reports may follow different processes, such a fundamental inconsistency — especially when compared to Regular P&L and Tax P&L, where cost is appropriately considered — raises serious concerns about the reliability and integrity of the Verified P&L.
Zerodha had indicated that a recalculation would be carried out, but I do not see any update so far. More importantly, I am not certain if the broader implication of this issue has been fully evaluated.
Given that Verified P&L is often relied upon by traders to present performance metrics, any structural inconsistency in its calculation can potentially lead to materially misleading representations. From a broader perspective, this also touches upon principles of fair disclosure and transparency that are central to regulatory expectations.
I request you to kindly re-examine this matter in detail and provide clarity on both:
The recalculation of my Verified P&L, and
The rationale behind the current methodology being followed.
I trust this will be addressed with the seriousness it warrants.
This further reinforces the need to reconsider Zerodha’s Verified P&L calculation process with an open and objective mindset.
You are already using a consistent and appropriate methodology for calculating both the Tax P&L and the Regular P&L reports. I find it difficult to understand why the same approach cannot be applied to the Verified P&L as well.
The inconsistency in handling cost prices — especially for transferred shares — is not just a minor variation; it fundamentally impacts the accuracy and reliability of the reported profit figures.
I am also unable to understand the reasons for not considering this suggestion over the past two months. The concern raised is not hypothetical — it is backed by actual outcomes and clearly demonstrates how the current process can lead to materially misleading results.
I request you to revisit this matter with due seriousness and provide a clear rationale for continuing with the existing methodology, despite its evident limitations.
Today, I received a resolution reply to the ticket. Here is that reply from support portal.
May 27, 2026 14:59 Anand
Thank you for writing to Zerodha.
Apologies for the inconvenience caused.
For your reference, we have attached the calculation of the P&L with and without using the transfer-in details entered for Reliance shares. This calculation has been prepared for FY 2025-2026. As explained earlier, the Verified P&L is updated without considering the transfer-in details, whereas the P&L report in Console is generated using all the trades. Please go through the report and if you have any concerns or queries you can update this ticket and we will get back to you.
Please note: This ticket will auto-close after 24 hours of inactivity, but you can reopen it at any time or reach out to us via our Support Portal.
[ Reliance P&L with transfer-in details (FY-2025-2026).xlsx ] —File link removed…
[ RELIANCE P&L without transfer details.xlsx ] —File link removed…
My response to Zerodha::::
Ticket Still Unresolved – Discrepancy in P&L Figures
Do you genuinely consider this ticket resolved?
The two Excel files provided as a resolution are effectively unchanged from when I first raised this issue in the first week of April 2026. The core problem remains: there is still a significant discrepancy between the Verified P&L profit and the Tax P&L profit.
The fundamental point of contention continues to be your treatment of transferred-in shares with a zero buy price. This assumption is directly driving the mismatch and has not been adequately addressed.
At this stage, it is unclear whether this issue is being misunderstood or simply not being acknowledged. Either way, we are no further ahead than we were at the beginning of April.
Please revisit the calculation logic—specifically the treatment of transferred-in shares—and provide a resolution that meaningfully addresses this discrepancy.
Yes.
As with any of the dashboards/reports.
There is always some nuance involved.
Are there any alternative methodologies
that while accurately representing this specific scenario,
that do NOT regress/misrepresent some other scenario(s)?
If not, then it seems like the justification for continuing with the current methodology is that it is the “least wrong” of all potentially wrong approaches possible.
So what are the options?
Simply stop publishing this report?
Always prominently highlight in the report
the potential discrepancies (transferred assets, <other such nuances?>, …)
that this report does NOT accurately reflect?
Add an automated info/warning note highlighting the potential for a discrepancy due to transferred-in units on any “Zerodha Verified P&L report”, only when the P&L of transferred-in units exceeds a relative threshold (say 5% of the profits/losses) ?
Something else ?
@siva / @nithin
Now that we know that Zerodha Verified P&L reports hosted at console.zerodha.com/verified/... can be trivially manipulated, and used to showcase profits where none exist (using transferred-in units), please reconsider whether the tiny greyed-out vague “fine-print” disclaimer at the bottom of such pages sufficiently highlights the nuances involved in these reports.
Disclaimer: The P&L report/Holdings/Positions data is prepared based on the trades and information available with us, at the time of report generation. …
Is this an unintentional “dark-pattern”,
one that financial scammers can exploit (have been?)
by relying on Zerodha’s name to mislead unsuspecting retailers?
Yes.