Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E” :MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-13(3)(2), Mumbai ( In short “A.O.”) the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) vide order dated 31.01.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: -
“1. That the order of the learned Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, (‘Assessing Officer’ or “A.O.’), is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed.
2.(a) The on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer ought to consider that the credit of MAT is consequential to the proceeding of A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, which are pending before the Hon’ble ITAT and due credit must be granted to the appellant based on the outcome of the said Appeal.
3. That the learned Assessing Officer has not granted credit for regular assessment tax paid of INR 10,00,00,000.
3 ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd..
4. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B of the Act.
5. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in consequently levying interest under section 234C of the Act.
6. That the learned Assessing Officer has failed to obtain the permission of joint Commissioner of Income- tax as required under provisions of section 220 of the Act for allowing a period of less than 30 days to the appellant for payment of demand.
That the Appellant craves leaving to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify, the grounds herein above or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
The assessee company had accepted the adjustment of transfer pricing consequence of the order u/s 92CA (3) of the Act, dated 22.01.2016 passed by the TPO, DCIT-2(2)(2), Bangalore amounting to Rs. 2,25,69,34,796/-. After completion of the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the ld. A.O. did not allow the Mat credit of the assessee which wasbrought forwarded from the assessment years 2009-10 to 2010-11. The assessee also 4 ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd..
filed an appeal against the order of the revenue before the ITAT for the assessment year 2011-12. The order was passed by the ITAT dated 03.08.2018 in favour of the assessee. The assessee was not allowed a MAT credit from the earlier financial year which will be adjudicated from the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee was also filed a rectification petition u/s 154 before the A.O. but the petition was turned out for not accepting the MAT credit of the earlier years. The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. A.O. passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Act before the ITAT also the regular assessment tax paid amounting to Rs. 10,00,00,000/- which was also not credited in the account of assessee during computation of income. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.
3.1 The learned counsel vehemently argued and pointed out that the assessee was not recognized to get the MAT credit for assessment year 2012-13. The said credit was brought forwarded from earlier years which was not allowed during the computation of total income for the assessment
5 ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd.. year 2012-13. Further, the amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- challan was not credited in assessee’s account.
The ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the A.O. and not able to challenge any contrary facts related to claim of assessee.
We have heard the rival submission of both the sides and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee had paid tax u/s 115JAA of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11. The demand related to assessment year 2011-12 was quashed by the order of ITAT. So, the assessee is eligible to get the MAT credit in this year. As per section 115JAA(5) of the Act, set off in respect of broughtforward tax credit shall be allowed for any assessment year to the extent of the difference between the tax on its total income and the tax which would have been payable under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act for that assessment year. Accordingly, the eligible MATcredit available to setoff for the Company during the captioned A Y, needs to be arrived at by comparing the difference
6 ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd.. between the tax liability computed under the normal provisions of the Act and the tax liability computed under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act.The assessee was also claiming the challan amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- was not credited. The issue was agitated before the Revenue Authorities by the assessee. The ld. DR had not strongly opposed the issue and not able to clarify the issue before the Bench. So, we are setting aside both the issues to the ld. A.O. for allowing the MAT credit brought forwarded from earlier years and credit challan amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- subject to verification. Related to ground No. 4,5 and 6 are consequential in nature. Ground No. 7 is general in nature.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.08.2022.