Iron Ore Lump vs Fines IBMI/IMR Pricing Steel Plant Reconciliation

A Tier-1 Indian integrated steel producer operating an 8.6 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) crude-steel plant with a blast-furnace and Direct Reduced Iron plus Electric Arc Furnace (DRI-EAF) integrated route (illustrative persona: an integrated coastal plant at Hazira, Gujarat) sits under a mixed iron-ore procurement stack that combines captive-lease lump and fines with third-party procurement from NMDC and private-sector mining-lease holders. The reconciliation surface must hold the monthly lump-versus-fines split against the Indian Bureau of Mines Index (IBMI) monthly benchmark price notified separately for each grade, the Second Schedule ad valorem royalty computation on the captive-lease extraction, the Section 194Q buyer-side Tax Deducted at Source on the third-party procurement (with NMDC as a Central Public Sector Undertaking inside the Section 194Q net per CBDT Circular 20/2021), the sinter-plant conversion economics on the fines fraction, and the Rule 89(5) inverted duty structure refund on the 5 percent Goods and Services Tax (GST) iron-ore input against the 18 percent GST finished-steel output. This iron ore lump vs fines IBMI/IMR pricing steel plant reconciliation walkthrough unpacks how these five layers fit together in the standing month-end close for a Steel Wave 1 integrated-producer persona.

The reconciliation in one paragraph

A Tier-1 or Tier-2 Indian integrated steel producer running a mixed iron-ore procurement stack — captive-lease lump and fines plus third-party lump from NMDC and private-sector mining-lease holders plus third-party fines from the same seller pool — must reconcile the monthly lump-versus-fines split by grade against the IBMI monthly benchmark price, compute the Second Schedule ad valorem royalty (15 percent lump, 10 percent fines) on the IBMI benchmark for the captive-lease extraction, deduct Section 194Q 0.1 percent buyer-side TDS on the third-party procurement above the fifty lakh rupees aggregate threshold per seller (NMDC included per CBDT Circular 20/2021), evaluate the sinter-plant conversion economics on the fines fraction against the direct-lump substitution alternative, and file the Rule 89(5) inverted duty structure refund on the 5 percent GST iron-ore Chapter 26 input against the 18 percent GST finished-steel Chapter 72 output — noting that Chapter 26 iron ore is NOT blocked by Notification 09/2022-CT(R) (contrast Chapter 27 coking coal and non-coking coal which ARE blocked). The core reconciliation surface is a per-source-per-grade-per-month iron ore procurement ledger holding weighbridge tonnage at pit-head and arrival-plant, IBMI benchmark lookup, ad valorem royalty computation, third-party procurement TDS register, sinter-plant conversion cost, Ind AS 2 per-tonne cost loading into hot-metal and crude-steel work-in-progress and finished-goods inventory, and the quarterly Rule 89(5) IDS refund filing packet on GST Form RFD-01.

What the scenario looks like in India — a Hazira integrated steel plant persona

The illustrative persona for this walkthrough is a Tier-1 Indian integrated steel producer operating an 8.6 MTPA crude-steel plant on the Gujarat coast at Hazira with a blast-furnace and DRI-EAF integrated route. The plant runs an iron-ore procurement stack of an illustrative 13.5 MTPA total annual consumption — 4.2 MTPA from a captive Anjar-area mining lease (2.8 MTPA lump and 1.4 MTPA fines) plus 9.3 MTPA from third-party procurement split across NMDC Bailadila (3.2 MTPA lump against the NMDC monthly-price-list benchmarked to IBMI) and NMDC-plus-private-sector fines (6.1 MTPA fines from the pooled NMDC and private-sector lease-holder supply against the IBMI fines benchmark). The plant operates a 4 MTPA sinter plant that converts the fines fraction (captive plus third-party) into sinter for the blast-furnace charge; the direct-lump fraction is charged to the blast furnace and the DRI kiln without sinter-plant routing. The plant’s finished-steel output — hot-rolled and cold-rolled flat products under Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff — is supplied at 18 percent GST against the 5 percent GST iron-ore Chapter 26 input, producing an accumulated inverted-duty-structure ITC position that qualifies for Rule 89(5) refund on GST Form RFD-01 (Chapter 26 not blocked; contrast the coking-coal Chapter 27 accumulation which IS blocked).

Illustrative Tier-1 and Tier-2 Indian integrated steel producers running the same mixed iron-ore procurement stack against the IBMI plus Second Schedule royalty plus Section 194Q on NMDC plus Rule 89(5) IDS refund compliance stack include SAIL, JSW Steel, Tata Steel, JSPL, RINL Vizag Steel, ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India (AMNS), Jindal Stainless, Kalyani Steel, Sunflag Iron and Steel and Bhushan Power and Steel (under JSW). The plant belt is distributed across Odisha (Angul, Kalinganagar, Jajpur-Cuttack), Jharkhand (Jamshedpur, Bokaro), Chhattisgarh (Bhilai, Raigarh, Raipur), West Bengal (Durgapur), Karnataka (Bellary-Hospet iron-ore belt with Vijayanagar), Andhra Pradesh (Vizag), Maharashtra (Dolvi) and Gujarat (Hazira) — every one of these plants runs the mixed captive-plus-third-party procurement stack against the monthly IBMI benchmark and the Second Schedule ad valorem royalty base, and the reconciliation discipline documented here is the standing month-end close mechanic for any integrated steel producer with a mixed procurement footprint.

The regulatory overlay — IBMI, Second Schedule ad valorem royalty, Section 194Q on NMDC, Rule 89(5) IDS refund

Five regulatory anchors govern an integrated steel plant’s iron ore lump-versus-fines procurement and IBMI-basis reconciliation. The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) IBMI monthly benchmark notification is the reference-price anchor for both the captive-lease ad valorem royalty computation and the third-party procurement price reconciliation. The Second Schedule to the MMDR Act 1957 prescribes the ad valorem royalty rates — 15 percent on lump ore and 10 percent on iron ore fines — applied to the IBMI benchmark for the applicable grade. Section 194Q of the Income-tax Act 1961 with CBDT Circular 20/2021 catches the third-party procurement from NMDC (PSU, not exempt-Government-payee) and from private-sector mining-lease holders. Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules 2017 with the Notification 14/2022-CT substituted formula prescribes the inverted-duty-structure refund on the 5 percent GST iron-ore Chapter 26 input against the 18 percent GST finished-steel Chapter 72 output. And Ind AS 2 governs the per-tonne cost loading into the hot-metal and crude-steel inventory.

The IBMI notification framework is issued on the first working day of each month by the Indian Bureau of Mines for the reference-benchmark iron ore price, separately for each grade — lump Fe 65 percent, lump Fe 63 percent, fines Fe 62 percent, fines Fe 58 percent, blue dust Fe 55 percent and concentrate. The IBMI benchmark is derived from a weighted-average of sale transactions across notified mines and state marketing corporation dispatches during the preceding period, published on the IBM website with historic-series continuity for cross-period reconciliation. The lump IBMI benchmark sits at a premium to the fines IBMI benchmark of the same iron-content grade (typical illustrative premium 15 to 25 percent) reflecting the direct-feed value of lump ore into the blast furnace against the sinter-plant conversion cost overhead on iron ore fines.

The Second Schedule to the MMDR Act 1957 prescribes royalty on iron ore at ad valorem rates against the IBMI benchmark — 15 percent on lump ore and 10 percent on iron ore fines. The per-tonne royalty liability for a captive-lease holder computes as the ad valorem rate applied to the IBMI benchmark for the applicable grade for the notification month, multiplied by the certified monthly extraction tonnage from the leased area. The iron ore royalty plus DMF plus NMET cost accounting for a steel plant sibling in this Wave 1 cornerstone unpacks the full three-layer levy stack including the DMF at Section 9B (30 percent of royalty for post-2015 leases, 10 percent for pre-2015 leases) and the NMET at Section 9C (flat 2 percent of royalty); the cement Wave 1 limestone royalty cross-cluster cornerstone documents the same three-layer levy structure applied to the cement industry, transferring directly to the steel industry with substitution of the ad valorem base (iron ore is ad valorem on IBMI; limestone is per-tonne under state notification) and the grade-mix mechanic (iron ore separates lump versus fines; limestone separates cement-grade versus non-cement-grade).

Section 194Q of the Income-tax Act 1961 with CBDT Circular 20/2021 catches the third-party procurement from NMDC and private-sector mining-lease holders. The Circular clarifies that a Central Public Sector Undertaking such as NMDC Limited is a person for the purposes of Section 194Q and does NOT fall within the Section 194Q(3) exempt-Government-payee category — NMDC pays corporate income-tax on its own account and is a Company under the Companies Act, not a Government or an authority whose income is exempt under Article 289 of the Constitution. Third-party procurement from NMDC above the fifty lakh rupees aggregate threshold per previous year attracts Section 194Q 0.1 percent buyer-side TDS, deducted by the steel company against the NMDC PAN. The parallel treatment applies to private-sector mining-lease holders. Contrast the captive-lease royalty payable to the State Government under Section 9 of the MMDR Act 1957 — that IS a payment to the State Government (Article 289) and IS outside Section 194Q per Section 194Q(3). The Section 194Q on iron ore purchase and mining lease payments for a steel plant Wave 1 sibling documents the full third-party-versus-captive treatment; the TDS payment code 1031 Section 393 SL 8 purchase-of-goods India walkthrough documents the correct TDS payment code, and the Section 393 payment code finder is the operational lookup.

Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules 2017 (as substituted by Notification 14/2022-CT dated 5 July 2022) prescribes the inverted-duty-structure refund formula — Maximum Refund Amount = [(Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services) x Net ITC / Adjusted Total Turnover] minus tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods and services, with Net ITC restricted to input tax credit on inputs (excluding input services). Notification 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13 July 2022 added Chapter 27 (Mineral fuels including coking coal, non-coking coal, petcoke and coal-derived products) to the Section 54(3) proviso (ii) list — the Rule 89(5) IDS refund on Chapter 27 accumulation is BLOCKED with effect from 18 July 2022. Chapter 26 (Ores, slag and ash — iron ore lump and iron ore fines) is NOT covered by Notification 09/2022-CT(R) and continues to be eligible for Rule 89(5) refund on the 5 percent GST iron-ore input against the 18 percent GST finished-steel output. The Rule 89(5) inverted duty structure refund for a specialty steel plant Wave 1 cornerstone unpacks the RFD-01 filing packet, and the Chapter 27 IDS refund bar Notification 9/2022 chemicals cross-cluster sibling documents the parallel Chapter 27 blockage that applies to the coal input side of the same steel plant.

A worked example — Hazira integrated steel plant FY 2026-27 iron ore procurement

Illustrative — the following figures represent the operating pattern of a Tier-1 Indian integrated steel producer operating an 8.6 MTPA crude-steel plant at Hazira with a mixed captive-plus-third-party iron ore procurement stack. Public disclosures by listed Indian steel majors do not reveal per-source per-grade per-month IBMI-benchmark procurement quantum in the granularity below; cross-verify against the current IBM notification for the IBMI benchmark, the current State Government notification under the Second Schedule for the ad valorem royalty rate, and your own procurement and captive-lease register before action. The Rs 4,600 per tonne lump IBMI and Rs 3,000 per tonne fines IBMI reference points used below are illustrative and do not represent the actual current IBMI notification for any specific operating year.

The Hazira plant closes its FY 2026-27 iron ore procurement position across the mixed captive-plus-third-party stack. The annualised full-year picture is:

On the captive-lease royalty computation, the Second Schedule ad valorem rate applied to the IBMI benchmark produces the per-tonne royalty liability. The 2.80 MT captive lump extraction at 15 percent ad valorem on IBMI Rs 4,600 per tonne generates a royalty of Rs 690 per tonne on lump — annual captive-lump royalty Rs 193 crore. The 1.40 MT captive fines extraction at 10 percent ad valorem on IBMI Rs 3,000 per tonne generates a royalty of Rs 300 per tonne on fines — annual captive-fines royalty Rs 42 crore. Combined captive-lease royalty is Rs 235 crore; DMF at 30 percent (post-2015 auction lease) adds Rs 70.5 crore and NMET at 2 percent adds Rs 4.7 crore, for a total captive-lease three-layer levy of Rs 310 crore for the year.

On the Section 194Q dimension for third-party procurement, the Rs 3,302 crore aggregate is well above the Rs 50 lakh aggregate threshold per seller. NMDC Bailadila lump at Rs 1,472 crore and NMDC-plus-private-sector fines at Rs 1,830 crore each attract Section 194Q 0.1 percent buyer-side TDS — deducted at Rs 1.47 crore (lump) plus Rs 1.83 crore (fines) equal to Rs 3.30 crore aggregate for the year, split by seller PAN and deposited monthly with quarterly Form 26Q filings.

On the sinter plant economics, the fines fraction — 1.40 MT captive fines plus 6.10 MT third-party fines equal to 7.50 MT total fines input — feeds the 4 MTPA sinter plant at 100 percent utilisation for the fines-to-sinter conversion. The sinter conversion cost at an illustrative Rs 450 per tonne of sinter (fuel, power, wear-and-tear, labour and overhead) plus a sinter plant capex depreciation allocation of an illustrative Rs 175 per tonne of sinter (Rs 750 crore capex on 4 MTPA over 20-year straight-line yielding Rs 93.75 crore per annum depreciation, spread over 4 MTPA output roughly Rs 234 per tonne — the Rs 175 per tonne assumes higher utilisation) produces a fully-loaded sinter conversion cost of an illustrative Rs 625 per tonne of sinter. The direct-lump substitution alternative — buying additional lump ore at IBMI Rs 4,600 per tonne rather than converting fines at Rs 3,000 per tonne IBMI plus Rs 625 per tonne conversion (equal to Rs 3,625 per tonne of sinter-equivalent) — is more expensive by Rs 975 per tonne, justifying the sinter plant investment at scale. On 7.50 MT fines processed through the sinter plant, the plant captures the Rs 975 per tonne differential for an annual value of Rs 731 crore versus the direct-lump-only alternative — the sinter plant is a strategic infrastructure investment above the scale threshold.

On the Rule 89(5) IDS refund dimension, the finished-steel Chapter 72 output at 8.6 MTPA crude-steel-equivalent supplied at 18 percent GST against the iron ore Chapter 26 input at 5 percent GST accumulates ITC eligible for Rule 89(5) refund. On the third-party procurement Rs 3,302 crore at 5 percent GST, the ITC accumulation on iron ore alone is Rs 165 crore for the year; the finished-steel output GST at 18 percent on the corresponding turnover is significantly higher, but the Rule 89(5) formula (Net ITC divided by adjusted total turnover) computes the refund on the inverted-rated portion. The plant files quarterly RFD-01 refund applications with CA-certified reconciliation for the Chapter 26 iron-ore ITC accumulation — the parallel coking coal Chapter 27 ITC accumulation (blocked by Notification 09/2022-CT(R)) is filed separately as a non-refundable accumulation and does not enter the Rule 89(5) refund computation.

Common reconciliation breakages

Five breakages recur across Indian integrated steel producers running the lump-versus-fines-plus-IBMI-plus-Section-194Q-plus-Rule-89(5) compliance stack, and each maps to a specific control failure that a State Mines Department inspector, an Indian Bureau of Mines mine plan review, a GST refund officer, a statutory auditor or an Income-tax Officer will surface.

• Grade code mismatch between captive extraction, weighbridge tonnage and IBMI benchmark lookup. The captive-lease extraction weighbridge records tonnage against a broad “lump” or “fines” tag without capturing the specific grade (Fe 65 versus Fe 63 for lump; Fe 62 versus Fe 58 for fines), and the royalty computation clerk applies a wrong IBMI benchmark — for example applying the higher-value lump Fe 65 IBMI benchmark to a Fe 63 lump extraction (over-computing royalty and DMF and NMET) or the lower-value fines Fe 58 IBMI benchmark to a Fe 62 fines extraction (under-computing royalty). The mine plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines specifies the expected grade-mix; a deviation between the mine-plan grade-mix and the certified monthly grade-split extraction that carries through to the wrong IBMI benchmark produces a State Mines Department show-cause notice on cross-verification. Reconciliation discipline: the captive-lease extraction register captures the specific grade code at the weighbridge stage from the on-line grade-analysis (or the fortnightly-composite-analysis) rather than the broad lump-versus-fines tag, and the IBMI benchmark lookup reads the grade-specific reference from the IBM monthly notification lookup table rather than being manually keyed by the compliance clerk.

• Section 194Q incorrectly NOT applied to NMDC procurement — treating NMDC as a Government-payee exempt under Section 194Q(3). A treasury or compliance clerk mechanically treating NMDC as a “Government undertaking” and skipping Section 194Q 0.1 percent buyer-side TDS on the Rs 3,000 crore or so annual NMDC procurement runs into a Section 194Q short-deduction assessment with 30 percent expenditure disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). CBDT Circular 20/2021 is unambiguous — NMDC is a PSU and IS inside the Section 194Q net; Section 194Q(3) exempts payments to a Government or an authority established by or under any Central Act or Provincial Act whose income is exempt from income-tax, which NMDC is not (NMDC pays corporate income-tax as a Company under the Companies Act). Reconciliation discipline: the payee master in the iron ore procurement ledger holds an explicit Section 194Q applicability flag driven off the seller type (State Government exempt; NMDC applicable; private-sector mining-lease holder applicable; captive-lease-to-parent inter-unit transfer separately handled), with the Section 194Q determination read from the flag rather than a case-by-case judgement by the treasury clerk.

• Sinter plant conversion cost per tonne assembly incomplete — direct operating cost captured but capex depreciation allocation missed. The plant cost accountant captures the sinter plant operating cost per tonne (fuel, power, wear-and-tear, labour and overhead) at an illustrative Rs 450 per tonne of sinter but omits the sinter plant capex depreciation allocation per tonne of sinter (an illustrative Rs 175 per tonne on a 20-year straight-line depreciation on Rs 750 crore capex over 4 MTPA capacity, adjusted for utilisation) — under-costing the fines-to-sinter route and under-reporting the sinter-plant break-even margin against the direct-lump substitution. Reconciliation discipline: the Ind AS 2 per-tonne iron ore raw material cost loading assembly explicitly includes both the sinter-plant operating cost per tonne and the sinter-plant depreciation-allocation per tonne, with the plant cost accountant reconciling the assembled cost against the actual sinter-plant expenditure and depreciation charge for the month.

• Rule 89(5) IDS refund incorrectly includes Chapter 27 coal ITC accumulation, or incorrectly excludes Chapter 26 iron ore ITC accumulation. A GST refund clerk building the Rule 89(5) RFD-01 packet mechanically consolidates all inverted-duty ITC accumulation from all inputs — including the Chapter 27 coking-coal-plus-non-coking-coal-plus-petcoke accumulation that IS blocked by Notification 09/2022-CT(R) — into the refund claim, triggering a refund officer rejection on the Chapter 27 portion and a partial-refund order with penalty exposure. The reverse failure — excluding the Chapter 26 iron ore ITC accumulation from the refund claim on the mistaken belief that the Notification 09/2022-CT(R) blockage extends to iron ore — leaves the refund claim under-stated and the ITC accumulation unnecessarily unclaimed. Reconciliation discipline: the Rule 89(5) refund register segregates the ITC accumulation by input Chapter (Chapter 26 iron ore refundable; Chapter 27 coal blocked and non-refundable, held as a permanent P&L cost) and the refund clerk builds the RFD-01 claim only on the Chapter 26 (and other non-blocked-input) accumulation, with the Chapter 27 accumulation flagged as a separate non-refundable line on the internal GST tracking register.

• Ind AS 2 per-tonne iron ore raw material cost loading incomplete — captive-lease landed cost captured but sinter conversion cost on fines fraction missed. A common inventory valuation failure is capturing the captive-lease landed cost per tonne (royalty plus DMF plus NMET plus mining operations plus crushing plus haulage) but missing the sinter-plant conversion cost overhead on the fines fraction that must be charged into the blast furnace as sinter rather than as fines direct — understating the hot-metal and crude-steel work-in-progress and finished-goods inventory carrying value at period end. The reverse failure — loading a non-inventoriable cost (a period selling or administrative cost) into the iron ore raw material cost — overstates the inventory carrying value. Reconciliation discipline: the Ind AS 2 inventory valuation policy note documents the explicit per-tonne cost bucket definition, the plant cost accountant assembles the monthly per-tonne iron ore raw material cost from the underlying general ledger sub-buckets (captive-lease royalty and levies from the mining compliance ledger; third-party procurement landed cost from the accounts payable sub-ledger; sinter conversion cost on the fines fraction from the sinter-plant cost centre; sinter-plant depreciation allocation from the mining rights and plant depreciation block) and reconciles the assembled per-tonne cost to the actual iron ore raw material charged to the blast furnace and DRI kiln for the month. The reconciliation failure mode analysis for India design pillar frames the cost-bucket-assembly discipline; the seven-family human-error taxonomy that surfaces the cost-loading gap sits in the human errors detection envelope anchor.

How a reconciliation platform handles this

A purpose-built steel plant reconciliation platform ingests every captive-lease weighbridge extraction record split by grade, every IBMI monthly benchmark notification from the Indian Bureau of Mines, every third-party procurement invoice from NMDC and private-sector mining-lease holders with the seller PAN and the seller-side IBMI-benchmark price reference, every Section 194Q 0.1 percent buyer-side TDS deduction with monthly deposit challan and quarterly Form 26Q filing reference, every sinter-plant fines-consumption and sinter-output tonnage record, every Ind AS 2 per-tonne cost loading entry into the hot-metal and crude-steel inventory, and every quarterly Rule 89(5) RFD-01 refund filing on the Chapter 26 iron-ore ITC accumulation. The platform tags each entry at capture with the grade code (lump Fe 65, lump Fe 63, fines Fe 62, fines Fe 58, blue dust Fe 55), the Section 194Q applicability flag (State Government exempt; NMDC as PSU applicable; private-sector mining-lease holder applicable), the Chapter code (Chapter 26 iron ore refundable under Rule 89(5); Chapter 27 coal blocked by Notification 09/2022-CT(R)), and the Ind AS 2 cost bucket destination (captive-lease-landed; third-party-landed; sinter-conversion; sinter-depreciation-allocation). Standing dashboard controls surface any grade-code mismatch between weighbridge extraction and IBMI lookup, any Section 194Q non-application to a third-party seller above the fifty lakh rupees aggregate threshold, any Chapter 27 accumulation incorrectly consolidated into the Rule 89(5) refund claim, any sinter-plant utilisation deviation from the break-even threshold and any Ind AS 2 cost bucket incomplete assembly. Match-rate improvement of 51 to 88 percent on the captive-lease-extraction-to-royalty-computation reconciliation and on the third-party-procurement-to-Section-194Q-TDS-deposit reconciliation, combined with an ISO 27001:2022 posture and DPDP Act 2023 aligned data handling for regulator-facing submissions, is what makes the platform an infrastructure investment for a Tier-1 or Tier-2 Indian integrated steel producer running a mixed multi-source multi-grade iron ore procurement footprint. The commercial pillar for the steel sub-cluster is steel reconciliation software India; the broader authority for the platform is reconciliation software India. Operational lookups sit in the Section 393 payment code finder for the correct Section 194Q payment code on third-party NMDC and private-sector mining-lease-holder procurement, and the Section 16(4) ITC exposure calculator for the parallel GST input tax credit exposure that runs alongside the Rule 89(5) refund filing.

The variance-classification and operational reconciliation methodology framework — mapping each iron ore procurement source to a reconciliation surface, holding the grade-code and IBMI benchmark lookup as a standing input, applying the correct Section 194Q flag against seller type, testing the Rule 89(5) refund eligibility per Chapter, and threading the Ind AS 2 per-tonne cost loading through the plant month-end close — sits in reconciliation failure mode analysis for India and reconciliation playbook for monthly close. The five FAQs below address the operational questions Indian integrated steel plant CFOs, procurement leads, mines heads, GST refund managers and statutory auditors ask most often when building the monthly iron ore procurement and IBMI-and-royalty-and-Section-194Q-and-Rule-89(5) compliance packet under the five regulatory anchors — IBM IBMI monthly notification, Second Schedule MMDR Act 1957 ad valorem royalty, Section 194Q with CBDT Circular 20/2021 on NMDC, Rule 89(5) with Notification 09/2022-CT(R) Chapter 27 blockage boundary, and Ind AS 2 per-tonne cost loading — with the sinter-plant conversion economics sitting parallel as the strategic infrastructure investment decision layer.

Terra Insight Editorial Team Reconciliation Infrastructure

Content authored by practitioners with experience at Amazon India, Intuit QuickBooks, and the Tata Group. Meet the team →

Published 28 July 2026

Domain expertise

TDS Reconciliation GST Input Credit Platform Settlements NACH Batch Matching Bank Reconciliation Form 26AS Matching ERP Integrations Enterprise Finance Ops

Reviewed by

NK

Navin Krishnan

Managing Director & Founder — Terra Insight

Ex Amazon India · Intuit QuickBooks · Tata nexarc

ISO 27001:2022 Patent Pending Incorporated 2024