A sample of 52 Indian CDM projects registered until May, 20, 2006 is analyzed with respect to the testing of additionality. While almost all projects do additionality testing, only half of them identify alternatives. Barrier testing is almost universal but only a third of the projects do an investment analysis. Small scale projects are less likely to look at the impact of CDM registration. A sub-sample of 19 projects is looked at in detail regarding barrier argumentation and treatment of the additionality test by the validators. Independent data sources are only used by one third of projects. Only about a fifth of projects provide a common practice analysis in sufficient detail. Less than half of large projects provide the relevant information on additionality in their PDD. While a technology barrier is mentioned most frequently, technology and institutional barriers, feedstock variability and lack of experience each affect a third of projects. Validators have problems in transparently evaluating barriers. The detailed case studies of two projects show that additionality assessment by the CDM Executive Board varies; if the project developer can obfuscate the attractiveness of the project, it is more likely to pass.