invoice INV-5672 · seen 2026-09-03
| Payments captured, gross | 1,678.00 |
| processor fee | (39.60) |
| tax on the fee | (6.04) |
| Should have landed | 1,632.36 |
| Actually landed | 1,632.36 |
| Unexplained | 0.00 |
The credit ties out.
| Ledger expects, gross | 1,864.44 |
| Customer paid, gross | 1,678.00 |
| Kept back | 186.44 |
The customer withheld part of the invoice.
Two comparisons, kept apart on purpose. The bank credit is net of the processor’s fee; the invoice is gross. A single “matches” line would hide which side is short.
Shown ahead of the proposal so you can judge whether these cases really are alike, before knowing what was concluded from them.
Seen before. A settlement credit that does not equal the sum of the gross payments captured in its window, but falls short of that sum by roughly two percent of the total.
Done then. Net each payment individually before summing. The processor deducts its fee and the tax on that fee per payment, not once on the batch, so summing gross and then applying one deduction leaves a residue that will not close. Compute the sum of individually-netted amounts and it will reconcile to the paise.
Seen before. A payment falls short of the open invoice by very close to two percent of the invoice value. The shortfall is proportional, not fixed, and no refund or fee explains it.
Done then. The customer withheld tax at source before paying. Reconstruct the gross invoice by dividing the received amount by one minus the rate, confirm it equals the invoiced figure, and match at gross. Post the withheld amount to a tax-receivable account against which the customer's certificate will later be applied. The invoice is fully settled, not partly paid.
Seen before. A payment short of the invoice by close to ten percent, proportional to the invoice value, against a customer buying professional or technical services.
Done then. Withholding at the higher professional-services rate. Same treatment as the lower rate: reconstruct gross from net, verify against the invoice, match at gross, and carry the deduction as tax receivable. The rate differs by the nature of the supply, so the correct rate must be established from the invoice, not assumed from the observed gap.
The agent proposed this at 0.88, under the 0.90 threshold set from measured outcomes, so it came here instead. The reasoning is complete; the confidence is what fell short.
tds short payment
Confidence 0.88 · arithmetic checked
The payments settle to INR 1,632.36 once each one's own processor fee and tax are deducted, against INR 1,632.36 that reached the bank. The ledger expects INR 1,864.44 gross while the customer paid INR 1,678.00, leaving INR 186.44 held back.
Confirming writes this into the corpus. It will be found and cited on future cases that look like this one, so a confirmation that is wrong does not cost one record — it becomes something the system reasons from. Decide on the figures and the precedents above, not on the verdict.