Antala disputes Rs 71.1254 lakh tax demand, balance pending

Antala Industries Limited (Antala) disputes a Rs 71.1254 lakh income-tax demand for assessment year (AY) 2025-26, arguing that its Section 115BAA concessional-tax election excludes minimum alternate tax. Antala reported paying Rs 50.8743 lakh, but the income-tax e-filing portal still showed Rs 20.2511 lakh outstanding and Rs 81,004 of accrued interest.

Why is Antala disputing the Rs 71.1254 lakh income-tax demand?

Antala is disputing all or part of a Rs 71.1254 lakh demand raised under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The demand arose from an order dated June 30, 2026, under Demand Reference No. 2026202537457127616C, and the August 4, 2026 communication from DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(1), Rajkot described the full amount as collectible.

Antala submitted a response disagreeing with the demand on July 8, 2026. The prospectus states that rectification rights lie with the Centralized Processing Centre, or CPC, and that the demand was served by email and post. The disclosure treats the matter as a tax proceeding, rather than a criminal, civil or securities-law case.

The amount exceeds Antala's Rs 23.13 lakh materiality threshold for other pending civil litigation. Antala's board adopted that lowest threshold on August 13, 2026, using 5% of the average absolute profit or loss after tax across the previous three annual restated financial statements. The prospectus separately reports tax proceedings, but the comparison shows the scale of the disputed demand against the company's stated litigation benchmark.

Why does Antala say minimum alternate tax does not apply?

Antala says its Section 115BAA election means the minimum alternate tax, or MAT, provisions in Section 115JB should not apply for AY 2025-26. In its August 5, 2026 response, Antala said it had opted for the concessional regime from AY 2025-26 and that a valid election under Section 115BAA makes MAT inapplicable.

Antala said it filed Form 10-IC electronically, quoting acknowledgement No. 102496550291225. It also said the tax payable under Section 115BAA had been paid and that it submitted the relevant payment challan with its response. Antala's position depends on the validity of the election and the tax department accepting that the payment was properly credited to its AY 2025-26 liability.

The prospectus does not state that the tax department accepted Antala's Section 115BAA interpretation or completed a rectification. Instead, a September 11, 2026 issue letter from DCIT/ACIT Circle 1(1), Rajkot continued to record Rs 71.1254 lakh as outstanding under the June 30, 2026 order. That difference between Antala's objection and the department's demand display remains unresolved in the disclosure.

How much has Antala paid and what remains on the portal?

Antala reported paying Rs 50.8743 lakh towards the AY 2025-26 outstanding demand on July 6, 2026. The payment was made through HDFC Bank net banking under Corporation Tax, head 0020, and the prospectus identifies Challan No. 80181, CIN 26070600494161HDFC and Bank Reference No. K2618750323790.

The e-filing portal nevertheless showed Rs 20.2511 lakh outstanding under the same demand reference, plus Rs 81,004 of accrued interest, with the status recorded as “Pending Payment.” The reported payment and remaining principal total Rs 71.1254 lakh, matching the original demand before the separately disclosed interest amount.

The remaining portal balance matters because the September 11 letter asked Antala to pay within seven days of receipt or submit a challan if the amount had already been paid. The letter also requested details where an outstanding amount resulted from a pending rectification application, appellate or Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme order, uncredited prepaid taxes, or a pending or granted stay or instalment arrangement. The prospectus does not identify which of those explanations, if any, applies to Antala's current portal balance.

What has the tax department asked Antala to do next?

The tax department asked Antala either to pay the recorded demand or provide documents supporting its position. The September 11, 2026 letter described Rs 71.1254 lakh as outstanding and requested payment within seven days, while allowing Antala to submit proof of payment where it had already deposited the amount.

The letter also addressed the possibility of an appeal against an assessment or penalty order. It cited Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No. 1914 dated July 31, 2017 and requested payment of 20% of the total demand with a challan where an appeal had been filed. Antala disclosed its disagreement with the demand and its payment, but did not state that it had filed an appeal, stay application or instalment application.

Antala also disclosed a separate Form 61B matter that is distinct from the Rs 71.1254 lakh demand. A February 19, 2026 letter sought information on Statement of Financial Transactions reporting for 2024-25 and 2025-26. Antala said it uploaded the required statement on May 25, 2026 under ITDREIN ABBCA1588N.AZ553, generating Statement ID 423953664250526 for reporting period 2025-26; a departmental Data Quality Report identified report-level defects and exceptions requiring a correction statement.

How does Antala's demand compare with its other disclosed tax matters?

Antala disclosed no criminal proceedings, statutory or regulatory actions, or other material civil litigation against the company as of the red herring prospectus date, apart from the stated tax matters. It also disclosed no proceedings by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, stock exchanges or other regulatory authorities. The AY 2025-26 demand is therefore the principal quantified company-level tax demand in the supplied litigation disclosure.

The filing separately reports an income-tax matter involving Octagon Industries for AY 2025. An intimation dated January 7, 2026 raised no tax demand in that matter, but levied Rs 1.36605 lakh of interest, which was pending payment or response. That proceeding is interest-only, whereas Antala's matter involves a Rs 71.1254 lakh demand recorded under Section 143(1)(a).

Antala's disclosures also distinguish the tax demand from its broader creditor position. As of September 30, 2026, Antala reported Rs 802.75 lakh of total outstanding creditor dues across 81 creditors, including Rs 253.66 lakh due to two material creditors. Those creditor figures do not determine the tax demand, but they show that the disputed Rs 71.1254 lakh is a separate statutory liability recorded in the litigation section.

Conclusion

Antala's disclosed case is that its Section 115BAA election, Form 10-IC filing and reported tax payment should prevent MAT under Section 115JB from creating the contested liability. The department's portal, however, continued to show Rs 20.2511 lakh of principal and Rs 81,004 of interest as pending after Antala reported a Rs 50.8743 lakh payment.

The next development to watch is whether the CPC rectification process or the Rajkot tax office updates the demand after reviewing Antala's election and challan. The September 11, 2026 letter specifically permits Antala to provide evidence of payment, a pending rectification, an appeal, uncredited prepaid taxes, or a stay or instalment request, but the prospectus gives no later outcome.