Disclosure of Updates to Ongoing Tax Litigations or Disputes
The updates on tax litigations or disputes in terms of sub-para 8 of para B of Part A of Schedule III read with corresponding provisions
of Annexure 18 of the Master Circular are given below: |
| Any Other Information for Disclosure of Updates to Ongoing Tax Litigations or Disputes |
|
| Sr. No. |
Name of the opposing party |
Date of initiation of the litigation / dispute |
Status of the litigation / dispute as per last disclosure |
Current status of the litigation / dispute |
| 1
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar |
31-Dec-2005
| For the Assessment Year 2001-02, the Bihar Sales Tax Authorities have disallowed sales tax benefits on credit notes for discount other than cash discount. In addition, the Sales Tax Authorities have also not taken congnizance of payments of sales tax and adjustment of entry tax payments against sales tax aggregating to 176.2 mINR. Rs.1.76 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 2
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar |
31-Dec-2005
| For the year 2002-2003, Bihar Sales Tax department has raised demand by rejecting discounts. The Company has filed an appeal in the Applellate Court. Rs.4.44 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 3
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa |
30-Apr-2019
| ET calculated by dept on Sale value rather than STM Value for 2005-07. Tax demand of Rs.56.62 lakhs + 2 times penalty of Rs.1.13 crores DEPARTMENT Appeal allowed. Appeal filed High Court Cuttack Rs.1.70 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 4
| Assistant Commissioner of Customs |
31-Mar-2012
| Demand raised for customs duty of goods imported and warehoused by GKW Ltd in 1996-97 even though LIPL has relinquished the title to the goods. Rs.14.44 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 5
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar |
31-Mar-2013
| Demand raised by erroneously applying tax on assumed MRP for sales to non-trade customers when tax was correctly paid on the sale price. Penalty of Rs.6.87 cr has not been considered. 2010-11 VAT Rs. 2.29 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 6
| Commissioner CGST & Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate |
01-May-2018
| Demand of service tax on the VSAT charges deducted by CFAs @ Rs.3.75 per ton from CFA bills alleging recovery of amount by Lafarge for providing intellectual services to CFA for the period Oct 2010 to Sept 2015. SCN issued by DGCEI. Provision created for demand, interest and penalty @ 25%. DEPT FILED APPEAL BEFORE CESTAT. Rs. 1.65 croes |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 7
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar |
31-Mar-2017
| Demand raised by disallowing adjustment of entry tax paid on cement lying in closing stock (Rs.126 lacs), disallowance of ET adjustment on damaged stock (Rs.75 lacs), tax on stock shortage (Rs0.50 lacs), non-considerance of extra ET brought forward (Rs.417 lacs) & interest (Rs.282 lacs) for 2012-13 in Bihar. Adjusted ET on opening stock (Rs.153 lacs). Rs. 7.08 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 8
| Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar |
31-Mar-2017
| Entry Tax demand raised arising from not considering carry forward of entry tax (Rs.417 lacs) and adjustment of excess ET paid in the period (Rs.38 lacs). Interest imposed is Rs.110 lacs. 2012-13 Rs. 4.89 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 9
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur |
11-Apr-2019
| Demand of excise duty on 173 mt of alleged clandestine clinker production and removal without payment of duty from 241 mt of limestone shortage (on the basis of physical stock in Dec 15) ignoring the fact that shortage has been explained and accounted for with reasons. DEPARTMENT APPEAL CESTAT dismissed Dept Appeal. Dept appealed before Jodhpur HC Rs. 5.29 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 10
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur |
30-Jan-2018
| Demand raised on fiscal incentive received from Rajasthan Govt under RIPS 2010 by adding the incentive to assessable value and charging excise duty. Period: Jan 16 to Jun 17. Rs. 2.10 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 11
| Commisioner of Commercial Taxes, Chhattisgarh |
31-Dec-2020
| Demand of Entry Tax denying adjustment of excess ET paid on limestone for clinker stock transfer from Apr15-Dec 15 against ET liability of Jan16-Mar16. Rs. 5.12 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 12
| Commisioner (Preventive) of CGST, Chhattisgarh |
11-Oct-2023
| Demand of interest (Rs.2.94 cr) & penalty (Rs.0.87 cr) charged on delayed payment of GST under reverse charge on Environment cess and Infrastructure Development Cess and penalty in CG from July 2017 till August 2021. Rs. 3.81 crores After settlement the demand is reduced to 0.77 crs |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 13
| Assistant Commissioner CGST Audit, Rajasthan |
19-Dec-2023
| Demand arising from arittmetical calculation errors by the Addl. Commr. in ITC mis-match and denial of ITC of IGST paid on imported inputs, etc. amounting to Rs.47142k for FY19 - FY21 an imposed equal penalty and interest. Being calculation errors, the demand is remote and likely to be dropped in appeal. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 14
| Joint Commissioner of SGST, Corporate Circle, Varanasi-I, UP |
29-Apr-2024
| DRC-01 issued based on audit observation on (i) intra-state STM, (ii) ITC denied on diary/calander, (iii) ITC mismatch even though explains & accepted, (iv) converted cement purchase value difference to sale of RMC, (v) denied ISD ITC, etc. (Tax. Rs.11.37 cr+Int Rs.8.53 cr). Rs. 23.31 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 15
| Assistant Commissioner (CT), Shollinganallur Circle |
13-Jan-2017
| Reversal of time barred Input Tax Credit Claim(TN VAT) as well as mismatch of transaction. (2014-15) Rs. 2.29 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 16
| Joint Commissioner of CGST, Audit |
26-Jun-2025
| The Show Cause Notice seeks to deny the adjustment of GST liability on discount credit notes for 6 years from FY19 to FY24, despite this issue not being raised during audit. Further, it disregards the submitted certificates and does not consider brought forward credit of previous year’s ITC and imposed tax inspite of credit not availed and proposing demand of Rs.10.03 crores. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 17
| Additional Commissioner. Commercial Tax, Chhattisgarh |
09-Jun-2025
| The Demand Orders seeks to impose entry tax on the movement of mixture of limestone and other inputs inside the factory at 10% in four different orders covering FY 2003 to FY 2006 proposing demand of Rs.16,66,05,560 which includes tax and interest. The demand is raised breaking all rules of limitations going back 23 years and determining demand on assumed quantities and value. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 18
| Additional Commissioner. Commercial Tax, Chhattisgarh |
26-May-2025
| The Demand Order seeks to impose entry tax on the movement of mixture of limestone and other inputs inside the factory at 10% even though the appropriate entry tax at 1% has been paid and accepted during assessments. There are 4 different demands for FY 2011 to FY 2014 aggregating Rs.6,55,20,000/- plus interest. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 19
| Assistant Commissioner, Comercial Tax, Chhattisgarh |
05-Jun-2025
| The Demand Order seeks to impose entry tax on the movement of mixture of limestone and other inputs inside the factory at 10% even though the appropriate entry tax at 1% has been paid and accepted during assessments. There are 4 different demands for FY 2016-17 raising the demand of entry tax of Rs.3,49,29,507/- with includes tax, interest and penalty |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 20
| Excise & Taxation Officer, Haryana |
02-Jun-2025
| The Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 seeks to deny input tax credit for FY 2018-19 on totally erroneous basis and ignoring the explanations given against discrepancy report, the reversals made, and the reconciliations submitted and raising a demand of Rs.6,50,29,591/- (which includes tax, interest and penalty) |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 21
| Excise & Taxation Officer, Haryana |
23-Sep-2025
| ITC denied on allegation of excess credit taken as reflected in Table 8 D of GSTR-9, difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and difference in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for 2019-20 Rs. 4.3 Crs |
The demand has been dropped |
| 22
| Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- Raipur |
24-Sep-2025
| DRC-01 issued alleging invoices raised without actual supply & Goods to enable ITC and corresponding clandestinely supplied without payment of tax & tax not charged on some supplies (Rs.3514k) Penalty of (Rs.372594k) & Tax demand (Rs.372594k) plus penalty (Rs.376108k) imposed. Rs. 112.48 Cr for 2019-Sep24 Demand reduced to Rs. 104.75 Cr |
Company to file appeal brfore Commissioner (Appeals) |
| 23
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2008
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the CIT (A) - Rs.3.15 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 24
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2009
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the CIT (A) - Rs. 4.05 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 25
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2010
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs. 5.01 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 26
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2011
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs. 7.07 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 27
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2011
| NVCL has claimed that IPA in respect of Mejia plant is a Capital receipt hence same is not taxable. However, the Income Tax department has rejected claim on the ground that since same is based on Sales turnover, so same is revenue receipt. The DRP has allowed appeal of the NVCL. The IT department has filed an appeal with the ITAT. - Rs. 9.80 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 28
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2012
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs. 6.92 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 29
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2012
| NVCL has claimed that IPA in respect of Mejia plant is a Capital receipt hence same is not taxable. However, the Income Tax department has rejected claim on the ground that since same is based on Sales turnover, so same is revenue receipt. The DRP has allowed appeal of the NVCL. The IT department has filed an appeal with the ITAT. - Rs.17.34 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 30
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2013
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.8.39 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 31
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2013
| NVCL has claimed that IPA in respect of Mejia plant is a Capital receipt hence same is not taxable. However, the Income Tax department has rejected claim on the ground that since same is based on Sales turnover, so same is revenue receipt. The DRP has allowed appeal of the NVCL. The IT department has filed an appeal with the ITAT. - Rs. 16.26 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 32
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2014
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs. 13.44 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 33
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2014
| NVCL has claimed that IPA in respect of Mejia plant is a Capital receipt hence same is not taxable. However, the Income Tax department has rejected claim on the ground that since same is based on Sales turnover, so same is revenue receipt. The DRP has allowed appeal of the NVCL. The IT department has filed an appeal with the ITAT. Rs. 24.97 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 34
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2014
| Payment for CSS to Lafarge SA as per agreement for various services was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. In the first appeal before the CIT (A)/DRP also disallowed the claim. NVCL has filed an appeal and is pending before the ITAT. Rs. 8.19 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 35
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2014
| NVCL was JV partner in ACPCPL for supply of power for ACP. However, due to some issues there was litigation between NVCL and ACPCPL, NVCL took provision for this litigation. IT department disallowed the same on the ground that same should be allowed on actual basis. The DRP have also rejected claim of the NVCL and stated that it should be allowed on actual basis. NVCL has filed an appeal with the ITAT - Rs.14.36 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 36
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2015
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.13.80 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 37
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2015
| Payment made to Lafarge SA and Lafarge Asia for IT services as per agreement has been disallowed by IT Department on the assumption that no services have been received by NVCL despite NVCL’s contention that the payment for IT services was at arm’s length price. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.1.59 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 38
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2015
| Payment for CSS to Lafarge SA as per agreement for various services was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. In the first appeal before the CIT (A)/DRP also disallowed the claim. NVCL has filed an appeal and is pending before the ITAT. - Rs.9.17 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 39
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2015
| NVCL was JV partner in ACPCPL for supply of power for ACP. However, due to some issues there was litigation between NVCL and ACPCPL, NVCL took provision for this litigation. IT department disallowed the same on the ground that same should be allowed on actual basis. The DRP have also rejected claim of the NVCL and stated that it should be allowed on actual basis. NVCL has filed an appeal with the ITAT - Rs.5.85 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 40
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2016
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.16.40 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 41
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2016
| Payment made to Lafarge SA and Lafarge Asia for IT services as per agreement has been disallowed by IT Department on the assumption that no services have been received by NVCL despite NVCL’s contention that the payment for IT services was at arm’s length price. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.6.14 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 42
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2016
| Payment for CSS to Lafarge SA as per agreement for various services was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. In the first appeal before the CIT (A)/DRP also disallowed the claim. NVCL has filed an appeal and is pending before the ITAT - Rs. 8.39 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 43
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2017
| Royalty paid @ 1% and then @ 1.5% (w.e.f. Jan12) to Lafarge SA as per agreement for Lafarge brand use was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.15.85 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 44
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2017
| Payment made to Lafarge SA and Lafarge Asia for IT services as per agreement has been disallowed by IT Department on the assumption that no services have been received by NVCL despite NVCL’s contention that the payment for IT services was at arm’s length price. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.3.05 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 45
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2017
| Payment for CSS to Lafarge SA as per agreement for various services was disallowed by IT Department on the logic that NVCL has not derived any benefit from the brand even though we argued that the payment was at arm’s length price and hence should not be disallowed. In the first appeal before the CIT (A)/DRP also disallowed the claim. NVCL has filed an appeal and is pending before the ITAT - Rs.7.62 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 46
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2018
| Payment made to Lafarge SA and Lafarge Asia for IT services as per agreement has been disallowed by IT Department on the assumption that no services have been received by NVCL despite NVCL’s contention that the payment for IT services was at arm’s length price. NVCL has filed appeals and pending before the ITAT - Rs.4.73 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 47
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2022
| The Income Tax department passed order due to system based incorrect mismatch in the Income Tax Return and Tax Audit Report. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT (A) - Rs.7.09 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 48
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2010
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.4.31 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 49
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2011
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.24.11 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 50
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2013
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.17.06 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 51
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2014
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.12.11 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 52
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2015
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs. 9.16 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 53
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2016
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.6.63 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 54
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2017
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.4.97 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 55
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2018
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.3.73 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 56
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2019
| In FY 2008-09, Lafarge A&C (LAC) acquired RMX business of L & T and based on Purchase Price Allocation (PPA), claimed depreciation on intangible assets in revised ITR. This claim was rejected on the ground that same was not claimed in original ITR and Tax Audit report. The CIT (A) and ITAT allowed appeal of the LAC and allowed depreciation on all Intangible Assets. The IT Department has filed an appeal with the High Court and the ITAT - Rs.2.80 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 57
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (1)(1),Mumbai |
30-Jun-2021
| The Income Tax department passed order due to system based incorrect mismatch in the Income Tax Return and Tax Audit Report. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT (A) - Rs.7.09 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 58
| National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi |
25-Jan-2024
| The Income Tax department passed order disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Transfer Pricing Adjustment, disallowance for depreciation on intangible assets and goodwill and disallowing of claim of provision for doubtful debts. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT(A) - Rs. 12.55 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 59
| Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department |
26-Mar-2025
| The Income Tax Department passed an order imposing penalty for concealment of income. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT(A) - Rs. 23.89 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 60
| National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi |
28-Mar-2025
| The Income Tax department passed order disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Transfer Pricing Adjustment, disallowance for depreciation on intangible assets and goodwill and disallowing of claim of provision for doubtful debts and disallowance of claim of docnation u/s 80G. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT(A) - Rs. 12.78 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 61
| Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department |
13-Mar-2026
| The Income Tax department passed order disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80IA for Transfer Pricing Adjustment and disallowance for depreciation on intangible assets . Demand raised of Rs.11.89 crores is erroneous and a rectification application will be filed. NVCL have filed an appeal with CIT(A) against the said assessment order |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 62
| Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise,Bhubaneshwar Commissionerate |
19-Jun-2019
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary) Denial of Cenvat on input services for setting up factory Rs. 2.69 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 63
| Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Division C, Jodhpur |
22-Apr-2019
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Denial of TRAN-1 credit of Service Tax paid on RCM after filing of ST-3 and taken directly in TRAN-1. Rs. 1.31 crores .Online APL 04 received on 22/12/2025 |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 64
| Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division II, Raipur, Chhattisgarh |
17-Dec-2020
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Entry Tax exemption claimed under CG incentive scheme disallowed during assessment since eligibility certificate was pending issuance by Industry Department for 2015-16. Rs. 3.86 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 65
| Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division II, Raipur, Chhattisgarh |
18-Jan-2021
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Entry Tax exemption claimed under CG incentive scheme disallowed during assessment since eligibility certificate was pending issuance by Industry Department for 2016-17. Rs. 4.48 Crs |
Rs. 6.26 crores reduced to Rs. 4.48 Crs by way of rectified de novo order. |
| 66
| Principal Commissioner, Bolpur CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate |
29-Sep-2024
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Denial of Cenvat credit of inputs and services viz. works contract, constrcution and consulting engineer's services & Cenvat of outward GTA services. Rs. 0.18 Cr |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 67
| Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Audit Commissionerate |
23-Jun-2022
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Denial of cenvat credit on ISD invoices since the input service invoices were dated prior to factory excise registration, services not eligible for cenvat, incomplete information of service providers, etc. Rs. 6.23 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 68
| Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Division II, Raipur, Chhattisgarh |
28-Dec-2022
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Entry Tax exemption claimed under CG incentive scheme disallowed during assessment since eligibility certificate was pending issuance by Industry Department for 2017 - 18 Q1. Rs. 1.46 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 69
| Assistant Commissioner of SGST, Patna Special Circle |
18-Feb-2023
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). DRC-01 issued for mismatch of ITC availed between GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B and adjustment of output tax against tax paid on advance receipt in 2018 - 19. Rs. 5.40 Crs. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 70
| Joint Commissioner of SGST, Division II, Raipur |
28-Jun-2022
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Denial of ITC on acount of mismatch betwwen GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B in 2018 - 19 Rs. 11.43 crores |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 71
| Additional Commissioner (Preventive), CGST, Chhattisgarh |
06-Nov-2024
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Demand of GST under RCM of Rs. 6.37 crores on Environmet Cess and Development cess in Chhattisgarh which has been paid without interest |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 72
| Joint Comm(Enforcement) State Tax -Raipur |
30-Apr-2024
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Difference in Cr.Note between GSTR 1 & GSTR 9, Difference of ITC in Table 8D of GSTR 9, non submission of state wise financials for the FY 2018-19 Rs. 11.06 Crs. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 73
| Deputy Commissioner, Patna Special |
22-Aug-2024
| This pertains to NU Vista Limited (material wholly owned subsidiary). Difference between GSTR-8A Vs 8D of GSTR 9, Allegation of claim of wrong / ineligible credit for the FY 2019-20 Rs. 6.12 Crs |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 74
| The Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Bolpur Commissionerate, West Bengal |
30-Jan-2025
| Denial of transitional credit of erstwhile cenvat credit of iron & steel received prior to GST but credit availed thru TRAN-1, 100% cenvat availed on capitals goods without taking 50% under central excise & service tax on outward transportation thru rail and road and works contract. The Officer has ignored the submissions made by the Company and passed a non speaking order confirming alleged demand of CGST of Rs.4.74 Crs alongwith equal penalty and applicable interest. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 75
| Joint Commissioner of State Tax-Jajpur-Odisha |
27-Feb-2025
| Demand order alleges ineligble itc claimed where it is not utilised in course or furtherance of business, Unaccounted for inwards supply of raw-materials leading to less payment of GST, unaccounted for production of cement by utilising excess quantity of packing materials leading to unaccounted for outward supply. Reveral of ITC on account of non filing of GSTR-3B by vendor, Non reversal of ITC on account of credit note received by the taxpayer during the F.Y- 2020-21, Claim of ITC for ISD invoice.Total Demand Rs.27.80 Cr(Tax Rs15.54,Int Rs.10.69,Penalty Rs.1.55 Cr)) |
There is no update from the last disclosure |
| 76
| National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi |
27-Apr-2021
| Disallowance of deduction claimed on marked to market gain as per ICDS of Rs. 5.54 Crs. having tax impact of Rs. 1.66 Crs. Ad-hoc disallowance of interest expense amounting to Rs. 34.24 Crs. having tax impact of Rs. 10.27 Crs. Disallowance of claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 94.12 Lakhs. having tax impact of Rs. 28.23 lakhs. |
There is no update from the last disclosure |