ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. DIVI'S LABORATORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 238/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 August 2021AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the MAT credit should be calculated after considering surcharge and education cess, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the MAT credit accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer allowed MAT credit after deducting it from the tax, but the assessee claimed the credit should be calculated after considering surcharge and education cess. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether MAT credit is to be calculated before or after considering surcharge and education cess.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ B ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. ….Appellant. Vs. M/s. Divi’s Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAACD 6745J …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Rohit Majumdar (D.R.). Respondent By : Shri Rama Rao. Date of Hearing : 10.06.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2013-14 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad order dt.09.12.2019 passed in case No.10154/2019-20 in proceedings under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Revenue’s sole substantive grievance pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee's surcharge and education cess is to be calculated after deducting its MAT Credit of 115JAA section from the tax vide its following discussion : “ 4.3 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the order of the Assessing Officer, and the written submissions of the AR. The Assessing Officer has allowed MAT credit of Rs.5,39,12,228 only, as against Rs.8,63,98,584 claimed by the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant’s AR that this difference is on account of surcharge and education cess not having been considered by the Assessing Officer, while giving the MAT credit. On similar grounds, the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad, in its order dt.29.11.2017 in in assessee’s own case, has held as under :

“ 9.6 The tax liabilities for normal provisions as well as MAT are calculated with surcharge and cess. The MAT credit in row “7” are calculated automatically using the prescribed algorithm, this is nothing but balancing figure i.e., the difference between tax liability as per normal provisions and MAT provisions. Both the above tax liabilities are calculated with surcharge and cess. These are the standard format, which are expected to be followed by all the assessees and also important to note that the above format of ITR 6 was amended w.e.f. Assessment Year 2012-13 by CBDT. Moreover, this is more relevant for the department also. These formats are regulated by CBDT. Assessing Officer cannot overlook these formats and (interpret it in his own method of calculating tax credit while making assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act.) 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

ITR-6 format to complete the assessment u/s 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act.” Respectfully following the said judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow MAT credit after taking into consideration surcharge and cess.”

3.

It emerges with the able assistance of both the learned representatives as well as from the perusal of the above lower appellate detailed discussion that this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench decision (supra) has already adjudicated very issue in assessee's favour and against the department. There is no distinction on facts or law pin pointed at the Revenue’s behest before us. We thus adopt judicial consistence to affirm the CIT(A) lower appellate finding deleting the impugned MAT adjustment. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 115JAA

All 274 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →