TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct.) proceed to calculate the MAT credit to compute assessment u/s 143(1) applying different methods when the proper and correct method as proposed by CBDT in ITR-6. The Assessing Officer is expected to follow the ITR-6 format to complete the assessment u/s 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act. Apex court decision in the case of K. Srinivasan [ 1971 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] may not have been brought to the knowledge of the ITAT, Delhi. Moreover, the explanation 2 of section 115JB is applicable to calculate tax liability u/s 115JB and the same explanation should also be applied for giving credit u/s 115JAA. The tax liabilities calculated u/s 115JB by applying the explanation 2, the tax liability so computed are remitted by the assessee and then the same was carried forward for future MAT credit. In our view, while calculating the MAT credit u/s 115JAA, the same explanation 2 in section 115JB must be applied. The assessee had followed the procedure properly and the Assessing Officer had made the calculations applying his own interpretation or relied on the programme, we are not sure whether it is programme hitch or the interpretation of Assessing Officer was not in line with the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as per regular provisions was higher as compared to MAT, the Appellant was entitled to claim and set off MAT credit of earlier years as per the provisions of Section 115JAA. The total MAT credit entitlement available to the appellant is ₹ 3,68,78,559/- (₹ 59,87,222/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 and ₹ 3,08,91,337/- for Assessment Year 2012-13. However, the Appellant was entitled to set-off only ₹ 1,28,21,526/- under section 115JAA, being the difference of the tax liability computed as per regular provisions and as per Section 115JB, Further, in no intervening Assessment Year, has the Appellant set off the abovementioned MAT credit. The Appellant disclosed its MAT credit entitlement in Form ITR-6. CPC Bangalore granted completed MAT credit for Assessment Year 2011-12. But, for Assessment Year 2012-13, CPC, Bangalore short granted MAT credit of ₹ 17,07,165/- even though the same was available to the Appellant and disclosed in Form ITR-6, It is, therefore, submitted that there was no reason for CPC, Bangalore to deny MAT Credit pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT (ITA No. 6682 / Mum / 2011) dated 09th January, 2015 3. Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT v/s Godrej Oil Palm Limited (ITA No. 5098/Mum/2013) dated 14th January, 2015 4. Decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in Virtusa India Private Limited v/s. DCIT - 157 ITD1160(Hyd.) 5. Decision of Chennai Tribunal in DCIT v/s Indian Syntans Investment Corporate Private Limited (ITA No. 13/Mds./2017) dated 01st May, 2017 6. Decision of Pune Tribunal in Dar Al-Handasah Consultants v/s ACIT (ITA No. 151 / PN / 2015) dated 30th November, 2016 7. From the above, he heavily relied on the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court and Coordinated bench of ITAT Hyderabad and submitted that the surcharge should be included or excluded before calculating the tax liability. He further submitted that the tax liability will remain the same in both the above proposition. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 4.3 of the order and also relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 9. Considered the rival contentions and the material placed on record, we notice from the record that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad has decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the income tax Act is more than tax payable under section 115JB and it shall be allowed to the extent of the following: Tax payable on total income under the normal provisions of the Act tax payable under section 115JB = MAT credit to be allowed. 9.3 On careful reading, the sub-section 2A, the tax credit to be allowed shall be the difference of tax paid for any AY under sub-section (1) of 115JB and the amount of tax payable on his total income computed in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. The important word used is tax paid and as per the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of K. Srinivasan (supra), the term tax includes surcharge. 9.4 It is also important to evaluate sub-section (5) of section 115JAA. Set off in respect of brought forward tax credit shall be allowed for any AY to the extent of difference between tax on his total income and the tax which would have been payable u/s 115JB, as the case may be for that AY. On careful reading, the term used are tax not income tax or any other term. Needless to say the term tax includes surcharge. 9.5 The sub-section (5) of section 115JAA are applied as it is in the ITR 6 . The ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then the same was carried forward for future MAT credit. In our view, while calculating the MAT credit u/s 115JAA, the same explanation 2 in section 115JB must be applied. 9.6 The earlier judgments in the cases of Universal Medicare, Valmet India and Wyeth Limited are decided relying on the ITR 6 as applicable in those AYs. Similarly, we also apply the ITR 6 format as applicable to AY 2012-13 as stated above. Assessee has relied on the ITR 6 format to arrive at the total liability as well as the MAT credit calculations and paid tax accordingly. In our view, the assessee had followed the procedure properly and the Assessing Officer had made the calculations applying his own interpretation or relied on the programme, we are not sure whether it is programme hitch or the interpretation of Assessing Officer was not in line with the calculations proposed in ITR-6. Therefore, we delete the addition made. 10. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision which is applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case, we are inclined to accept the submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 11. In the net result the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
