TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant Member Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Aggarwal Respondent By: Sh. S.K. Mittal ORDER Annapurna Gupta A.M. Both the appeals have been filed by different assessees against separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana dt. 28/10/2014. Since identical issue has been raised in both the appeals, they are being disposed off by a common order. 2. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6/Chd/2015. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in adopting an inconsistent approach when compared with previous years, for calculation of Minimum Alternate Tax to be carried forward. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by adopting a methodology w.r.t Minimum Alternate Tax in variation to that provided in section 115JAA and 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The only issue in the present appeal relates to determination of the point at which tax credit under section 115JAA is to be given, whether after levying surcharge and education cess on the tax calculated as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,93,39,656/- 5. Aggrieved by the same the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the additional demand had arisen on account of different methodology followed by the Revenue to define the term tax. The assessee argued that while for the purpose of determining tax credit under section 115JAA for Assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, surcharge and cess had been excluded, on the other hand while calculating the tax payable for the impugned year against which MAT credit was set off, surcharge and cess had been included. The assessee argued that this was an anomaly and hence the rectification sought to be made was erroneous. Further the assessee argued that the methodology followed by the assessee of setting off MAT credit from the tax liability of the assessee determined, before including surcharge and cess, was in conformity with ITR -6 Forms prescribed by the CBDT. The assessee further pointed out that the forms have been amended to include surcharge and cess in the tax liability only with effect from Assessment year 2012-13. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Vacment India Ltd. (supra) 369 ITR 304 wherein the Hon ble High Court held at para 5 - 7 of its order as under: 5. The only question which is raised pertains to the computation of tax in accordance with the modalities which are prescribed in the relevant form, ITR-6. Insofar as is material, the relevant entries in the form (Part B-TTI) are as follows: 3 Gross tax payable (enter higher of 2c and 1) 4 Credit under section 115JAA of tax paid in earlier years (if 2c is more than 1) (7 of Schedule MATC) 5 Tax payable after credit under section 115JAA[(3-4)] 6 Surcharge on 5 7 Education cess, including secondary and higher education cess on (5+6) 8 Gross tax liability (5+6+7) 6. The aforesaid entries leave no manner of ambiguity in regard to the method of computation of tax liability. Entry 3 requires computation of the gross tax payable. Under entry 4, credit is required to be given under section 115JAA of the Act of the tax paid in earlier years. Entry 5 requires a computation of the tax payable after credit under section 115JAA of the Act. The matter is placed beyond doubt by the parenthesis, which indicates that tax payable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely, the amount of MAT credit should also include surcharge and education cess for the purpose of allowing the credit against the tax liability inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Therefore, the MAT as well as normal tax before allowing the MAT credit has to be taken on parity either exclusion of surcharge and education cess or inclusive of surcharge and education cess or inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Accordingly we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the MAT credit against the tax liability payable before surcharge and education cess or alternatively the amount of MAT credit should also be inclusive of surcharge and education cess and then allow the credit against the tax payable inclusive of surcharge and education cess. In the impugned case, the assessee had stated that the MAT credit does not include surcharge and cess, which fact we find, has not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, following the proposition laid down by the co-ordinate Bench in the above noted cases, also the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court we hold that the adjustment of MAT credit under section 115JAA is to be made fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
