M/S. INFOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BENGALURU

O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-3, Bangalore, dated 12.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of trading in computer and accessories and rendering services related to computer software, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 16.09.2015 declaring income of Page 2 of 6 Rs.6,34,88,610/-. The case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 21.12.2016 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.6,34,88,610/-. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by CIT(A)-3, Bangalore vide order dated 12.10.2017.

1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far is prejudicial to the Interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the issue of MAT credit is debatable one and cannot be rectified by invoking provisions of section 154 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred 3. in law and on facts in not adducing any reason whatsoever for not considering the MAT Credit of Rs.72,64,964 (Inclusive of Surcharge and Cess). That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought 4. to have set off the MAT Credit at Rs. 72,64,964. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought 5. to have considered the MAT Credit inclusive of Surcharge and Cess. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, to add, delete, amend, or modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing.