ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI vs. SAINT GOBAIN GALSS INDIA LTD., KANCHIPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 61/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 September 2018AY 2010-113 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 term 'tax' in Section 115JAA includes surcharge, as per Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, MAT credit should be allowed as an adjustment from the total tax payable, including surcharge and cess.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act. The dispute was whether MAT credit should be adjusted before or after applying surcharge and educational cess.

What were the issues?

Whether MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be adjusted before or after applying surcharge and educational cess.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JAA,Section 115JA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY]

For Respondent: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Adv

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- In this appeal filed by the Revenue, which is directed against an order dated 31.10.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Income Tax Act,

ITA No.61 /2018 :- 2 -:

1.

1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’), as adjustment from the tax on total income before applying surcharge and educational cess.

On a query from the Bench, it was admitted by the ld. 2.

Departmental Representative that the difference on account of educational cess in the MAT credit was �1,04,72,415/- only. Tax applicable for assessment year 2010-2011 under MAT provision is 15% and this would be less than �20,00,000/-. Accordingly by virtue of CBDT Circular No.03/2018, dated 11.07.2018, appeal of the Revenue may not survive.

3.

Even otherwise the question raised by the Revenue does not merit acceptance. This is due to the fact that tax credit to be allowed u/s.115JAA of the Act by virtue of Sub Section (1) thereof is difference between tax paid for any assessment year u/s.115JA(1) of the Act, and the amount of tax payable by the assessee in accordance with other provisions of the Act. The important word used is tax paid. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan, (1972) 83 ITR 346, the term tax includes surcharge. Under Sub Section (5) of Section 115JAA, setoff in respect of brought forward tax credit is allowed for any assessment year, to the extent of the difference between tax on the total income and the tax which would have been payable under Section 115JA or 115JB as the case may be.

ITA No.61 /2018 :- 3 -:

The term used is tax and not income tax. Considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned supra, in our opinion, the decisions relied on by the Revenue would not further its case.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 5th day of September, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 115JAA

All 274 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →