TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its return of income in respect of MAT credit is correct. We find that assessee being a company had filed its return of income in ITR-6 (i.e. prescribed form) under schedule for MAT credit (Schedule MATC), the assessee is precluded from filling up any figure as they are automatically picked from yet another schedule in the same ITR form i.e. 1d of Part-BTT1 and 5 of part-B-TT1, wherein the figures mentioned thereon, represent tax payable under normal provisions and u/s.115JB of the Act respectively, which is admittedly inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Hence, there is absolutely no scope for ignoring surcharge and education cess for the purpose of computing MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Act. It is a well known fact that the ITR r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infrastructure management and other services to its customers. The return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 29/09/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 1,97,52,514/- under normal provisions of the Act and ₹ 2,26,04,473/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The assessment was completed accepting the returned income of the assessee. However, while computing the tax liability, i.e. in the tax computation sheet, the ld. AO calculated MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Act at ₹ 17,44,045/- as against ₹ 18,86,185/- claimed by the assessee. Consequently, interest u/s.234C of the Act was also charged by the ld. AO for the deficit in tax. This difference in figure arose because of the fact the assessee computed the diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax (Sr. No. 7) 64,08,831 64,08,831 11. Less: MAT credit 18,86,185 (Sr. No. 3-6) 17,44,045 (Sr. No. 1-4) 12. Total tax 45,22,646 46,64,786 5. As per Section 115JAA(5), set off in respect of brought forward MAT credit shall be allowed for any assessment year to the extent of the difference between the tax on total income and the tax which would have been payable under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act for that assessment year. 6. We find that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 83 ITR 346 had categorica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
