M/S ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 December 2017AY 2012-134 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of MAT credit for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 after due verification. This was based on earlier Tribunal decisions that held no Transfer Pricing adjustment was called for in those years.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed MAT credit of Rs. 1,86,95,728/- for AY 2012-13. The AO restricted this claim, finding no MAT credit available for certain earlier AYs and a discrepancy in the credit for AY 2010-11. The CIT(A) treated the issue as premature, stating that superior appellate orders would be followed by the AO.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the eligibility and calculation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit. The assessee sought to claim MAT credit based on favourable orders from earlier assessment years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH A, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI. JASON P. BOAZ & SHRI. LALIT KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. PADAM Chand Khindha, CA

M/s. Electronics For Imaging India P. Ltd, Kalyani Platina, 4th floor, Block-1, No.24, EPIP Zone, Phase-II, Whitefield, Bengaluru 560 066 .. Appellant PAN : AAACG6053E v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -2(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. PADAM Chand Khindha, CA Revenue by : Shri. B. R. Ramesh, JCIT Heard on : 28.11.2017 Pronounced on : 06.12.2017 O R D E R PER LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A)-2, Bengaluru, dt.27.10.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13.

ITA.97/Bang/2017 Page - 2

2.

Although the assessee has raised various grounds in its grounds of appeal, however at the time of argument the Ld. AR has restricted to ground no.4 only which is as under :

“Restricting the MAT credit available to the Appellant to Rs.35,42,341/- without appreciating that in the facts and circumstances of the case amount as claimed in the return of income was available as credit;” 03. In this regard the Ld. AR has submitted that the AO had disallowed the MAT credit of Rs.1,86,95,728/- with the following observation :

Disallowance of MAT credit: During the current year, the assessee has claimed total MAT credit of Rs. 1,86,95,728/-, the breakup is as follows: - A.Y. MAT Credit Set off claimed 2008-09 26,55,057 26,55,077 2009-10 17,89,634 17,89,634 2010-11 90,95,229 90,95,229 2011-12 1,30,48,841 51,55,808 TOTAL 2,65,88,761 1,86,95,728

On verification of the same, it is seen that the assessed income and corresponding tax calculated under normal tax provisions is more than calculation of tax on book profits for A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12 and hence there is no MAT credit available for the assessee. Further MAT credit available for A.Y. 2010-11 is Rs.81,74,978/- and not Rs.90,95,229/-. Hence, the MAT credit claim, is restricted to Rs.81,74,978/- only and accordingly the assessment is completed.

Feeling aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A).

ITA.97/Bang/2017 Page - 3

4.

The CIT (A) in para 5.1 of his order held as under : 5.1 From the submissions filed, it is apparent that the remedy sought is that the Assessing officer should allow MAT credit as allowable after the appeals of earlier years are decided by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and tax payable of earlier years is re-computed. I find that, as on date, there is no grievance. Therefore, no adjudication in appeal is considered necessary. The remedy sought that 'as and when favourable orders are received, these should be implemented' does not require any adjudication as orders of superior appellate authorities have to necessarily be followed by the AO. With this, the issue is treated as premature and without any merit to be sustained in appeal.

5.

Before us the Ld. AR has submitted that the Tribunal had decided the appeals of the assessee for the AYs. 2008-09 , 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Our attention was drawn to page 69 of the paper book containing the copy of the orders of the Tribunal, where in para 16, for the AY 2008-09, the Tribunal has held that no TP adjustment is called for. Similarly Tribunal in various other decisions had also held for other assessment years, no TP adjustment is called for.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our view, once the CIT (A) in para 5.1 while adjudicating the ground, has observed that the AO should allow the MAT credit after the appeals of the earlier years are decided by the ITAT, therefore AO should give effect to the order passed by CIT (A). It is clear from the perusal of the order for the earlier years that the Tribunal has categorically held that no ALP adjustment is called for and therefore ITA.97/Bang/2017 Page - 4 we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to give the benefit of MAT credit in all the four assessment years i.e., AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, after due verification and in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th day of December, 2017.

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →