Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (6) TMI 273 - AT - Income TaxMinimum Alternate Tax - deduction u/s 80HHC - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that Hon'ble Hyderabad 'B' Bench in the case of Starchik Specialties Ltd v. Dy. CIT[2003 (7) TMI 283 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] placed somewhat liberal interpretations on aforesaid clause (viii) of the section. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble members clearly held that deduction under clause (viii) has to be computed with respect to the book profit. In spite of the difference in language of section 115J and section 115JA in the matter, pointed out earlier by us, we are of the view that judicial propriety demands that we follow the decision in the case of Starchik Specialities Ltd. In view thereof, it is held that deduction u/s 115JA, Clause (viii) of the Explanation, is to be computed on the basis of book profits. Therefore, appeals are partly allowed. Interest under sections 234B and 234 - We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2004 (3) TMI 62 - ITAT CHENNAI] and Synthetic Industrial Chemicals Ltd [2004 (1) TMI 310 - ITAT COCHIN]. On combined reading of various sections, namely, 115JA, 115JAA, 208, 209, 234B & 234C, the Hon'ble Tribunal came to the conclusion that MAT credit is akin to advance tax because it goes to reduce the liability of the assessee of the year and, accordingly, it reduces the liability of assessee by an equivalent amount from payment of advance tax. It has been mentioned by the Tribunal that MAT credit is not mentioned specifically in Explanation 1 to section 234B. Therefore, it can be said that the issue whether MAT credit is advance tax paid or not is a debatable issue and any independent conclusion can be arrived at only after detailed arguments on the harmonious construction of aforesaid sections. Even after that, it cannot be said that MAT credit is tax deducted at source, tax collected at source or advance tax paid. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the question of law on this issue requires considerable debate. If the issue requires debate and discussion, it cannot become a subject-matter of rectification u/s 154 because under this section only patent and obvious mistake of law can be rectified. In view of this discussion, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeals of assessee on the issue of computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C. The result of this discussion that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|