“MAT credit”

Special Rate ProvisionsSection 115JAASection 115JAA334 judgments

The decision most relied on for MAT credit is CIT v. K. Srinivasan (83 ITR 346), cited in 129 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on MAT credit

CIT v. K. Srinivasan

83 ITR 346 · 1972 · Supreme Court

129

citing judgments

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

Rain Commodities Ltd. v. DCIT

41 DTR 449 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT Special Bench in Rain Commodities Ltd. held that certain capital receipts, such as forfeited share warrants, if credited to the profit and loss account, are liable for book profits tax under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax).

Allied Motors v. CIT

297 ITR 322 · 2008 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An amendment to a section is declaratory and clarifies the existing legal position, rather than introducing a new rule.

CIT v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd.

330 ITR 226 · 2011 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A form prescribed under the Income-tax Rules cannot override the parent statute; the set-off of MAT credit balance against tax is not dependent on the computation of interest under section 234B.

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Raman Lal Hathi

217 CTR 105 · Reported

citing judgments

Amendments to Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are curative and have retrospective effect, intended to clarify and remove anomalies. Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit must be set off against tax payable before computing advance tax liability to avoid absurd results.

Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

395 ITR 291 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

MAT credit granted under section 115JAA should be inclusive of surcharge and cess.

CIT v. Vacment India

369 ITR 304 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The High Court holds that tax credit cannot be claimed on surcharge and education cess. The calculation of MAT credit should be done after applying surcharge and education cess.

SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. DCIT

72 Taxmann.com 239 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

MAT credit under Section 115JAA must be set off against the total tax liability, including surcharge and cess. This implies that cess forms part of the tax for the purpose of MAT credit adjustment.

Judgments citing MAT credit

Versatile Card Technology Private Limited, Sidco, Chromepet, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Income Tax Office, Main Building - IV Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai

ITA 1392/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1392/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Versatile Card Technology Private Principal Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Chennai -3, Ac-21, 4Th Main Road, Sidco Income Tax Office, Main Industrial Estate, Building, Iv Floor, Thirumudivakkam, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. [Pan:Aabcv-0567-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

added to book more tax u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 than tax payable under normal provisions, then it will get higher MAT credit for set off against the normal tax payable in the following years. 17. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 15.03.2022 is party

Megha Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 959/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43C

erred on facts and in law in not considering the set off of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.9,07,019/- and MAT Credit of Rs.4,96,031/- while upholding the addition made by the AO.’’ 2.1 As per the facts of the present case the assessee is engaged

M/S. Salarpuria Homes Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

held accordingly. 4. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in not allowing the MAT credit of Rs. 1,38,064/-, although all evidences in such accordingly much available on record and hence MAT credit may kindly be allowed

Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.408/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd………...........………………....Appellant 8/1/B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700027. [Pan: Aabcp8017C] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata.…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitesh Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 04, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By Two Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. Considering The Shortness Of Delay, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 250

regular assessment. The plea of the ld. AR is that the ‘tax determined’ would be the amount arrived at after giving MAT credit of the earlier year. However, the plea of the revenue is that the tax determined will be the amount of tax determined as per the provisions ... Income Tax Act before giving any credit of TDS, TCS, MAT credit etc. In this case, if the amount of ‘tax determined’ is taken as per the plea of the assessee i.e. the amount payable after giving MAT credit, then the difference of the amount refundable and the ‘tax determined

Nirma Credit & Capital Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 887/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing the claim for granting MAT credit of Rs.17,13,507/- of Asst. Year 2011-12. 4. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend ... Asst.Year –2021-22 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case relating to the issue for consideration before us are that the assessee claimed MAT credit of Rs.17,13,507/- but failed to upload requisite Form 29B. Consequently, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) did not allow the benefit of unutilized

Crystal Crop Protection Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 302/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 254

case the Ld. AO erred in giving credit of MAT by first adding education cess and surcharge to gross tax and then adjusting MAT credit therefrom instead of first adjusting such credit from gross tax exclusive of surcharge thereto. 3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case ... dated 20.12.2015. 6 04.08.2020 An order u/s 254 was passed determining refund of Rs.2,89,14,430/-. In this order, the MAT credit of Rs.8,60,09,567/- was adjusted from the total tax liability of Rs.40,36,45,338/- including surcharge (Rs.2,73,41,071/-) and education cess (Rs.1

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 37

tenancy rights amounting to Rs. 5,93,333/-. (VII) Incorrect Computation of Book Profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. (VIII) Non Grant of MAT Credit amounting to Rs. 13,42,936/-. (IX) Non Grant of Unabsorbed Depreciation amounting to Rs. 8,81,186/-. (X)Non Grant of Brought Forward ... Carry forward of MAT Credit amounting to Rs. 6,14,510/-. (XI) Short Grant of TDS amounting to Rs. 26,298/-. 3. Brief facts qua the first issue, whether the composite letting of property is to be taxed under the head ‘income from house property' or from 'profits and gains

Anand Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1375/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1375/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Anand Engineering Products Pvt Vs. The Assessing Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward 1(1) D-56, Developed Plots Estate, Chennai. Thuvakudi, Trichy 620 015. [Pan: Aafca 1512R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, IRS, JCIT

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 249(2)(c)Section 249(3)

allowed and consequent to that a demand of Rs.23,58,130/- has been raised. The appellant had made several representations against this disallowance of MAT credit and was not considered. Being aggrieved by the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated ... No.1375/Chny/2024. years. It is also found that the appellant had made several representations for setting right the anomaly of not giving credit to the MAT credit of AY 2014-15, but not heard by the Assessing officer/CPC. Even after the demand was raised several representations and grievances were raised

M/S Longview Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed with the direction to ld. AO to re-examine the issue in relation with MAT credit. However, the issues in relation to addition made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 2,02,665/- remain unchanged. 3. Dissatisfied with ... Delhi High Court. We allow ground no. 1 & 2 and delete the addition. 6. In ground no. 3 is in relation with MAT credit u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs. 4,80,649/- ld. CIT(A) merely giving direction to AO for verification of records which is not proper

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 556/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 556/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aban Offshore Limited, V. Tax, 113, Janpriya Crest, Corporate Circle -1(1), Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai. Tamilnadu – 600 008. [Pan:Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Virtual) ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Nanda Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35DSection 90Section 92C

ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that ld.AO erred in not considering the fact that the assessee is eligible to take MAT credit under the provision of section 115JB of the Act.” Facts of the case: 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of Investment ... Further, the Assessing Officer had not considered the relief u/s.90 of the Act of Rs.1,17,02,382/- along with the denial of MAT credit U/s.115JB. :-4-: ITA. No:556/Chny/2024 5. The assessee filed an application dated 14/12/2020 for rectification U/s.154 of the Act, to rectify the following mistakes apparent

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

80IC @ 30 percent in place of 100 percent claimed by the assessee and thereby made the addition of Rs. 7602852/- and withdrawn the MAT credit by Rs. 25,84,210/-. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the ground though the assessee company took deduction ... into allowing of excess deduction of Rs. 76,02,852/- (10861217-3258365) u/s 801C(2)(b)(ii) of the Act involving excess carry forward MAT credit of Rs. 25,84,210/- with total income to the extent. Since the mistake being apparent from the face of record, the same

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dahejharbour and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2792/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in deciding that the MAT credit inclusive of surcharge and cess is to be allowed to be set off under section 115JAA(5) of the IT Act ignoring that the section ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in deciding that the MAT credit inclusive of surcharge and cess is to be allowed to be set off under section 115JAA(5) of the I.T. Act without appreciating the ratio

Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

ITA 2645/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2645/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RsFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

including surcharge 2,656,726,428 Tax payable u/s 115JB -MAT 1,792,136,224 Higher of the two 2,656,726,428 Less: MAT credit Net tax liability 2,656,726,428 Less: Credit u/s 91 27,414,267 Less: Tax Deducted Source 2,629,312,161 Balance Payable

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ocl India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is partly allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6351/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.6351/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2004-05) Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-7, R.No. 211, C.R Building, New Delhi-110002. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Ocl India Ltd., 7Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 Pan: Aaaco-1354 -J

For Appellant: Shri Amaninder Singh Dhindsa, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Arren, CA

Section 115JSection 154Section 244A

that a perusal of the order dated 05.06.2018 passed u/s. 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO) would show that benefit of MAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,13,99,406/- was allowed to the assessee without any interest. The First Appellate Authority by placing reliance on certain ... decisions has allowed interest to the assessee u/s. 244A of the Act on refund arising on account of MAT credit. The ld. DR referring to the provisions of Section 115JAA of the Act submitted that proviso to sub-section (2) to Section 115JAA of the Act restricts payment of interest

Hero Motocorp Ltd (As Successor of Hero Investment P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

treatment in the computation of income tax is enclosed at Annexure- IV. 12. Details of Tax Credit u/s 115JAA of as hereunder:- AY MAT Credit MAT Credit MAT Credit Available Utilised in C/F Asstt. Year 2011-12 2007-08 67,08,332 67,08,332 TOTAL ... aforesaid MAT credit has been adjusted from the Net Tax Liability of the assessee for the year under consideration in accordance with provisions of section 115JAA.” 26.3 Thus we find that the share agreement dated 22.01.2011 and reconciliation of investments capturing quantity and value of opening investment, investment purchased

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cirlce-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 501/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already disallowed such amount, thereby leading to double disallowance. 13. Not considering the brought forward MAT credit while Computing the tax liability. Interest and Penalty 14. Imposing interest u/s 234B of the Act on: a. TP adjustment on provision of IT Enabled ... deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the same was deducted under Section 10A of the Act. Regarding the availability of MAT Credit, the Hon'ble DRP directed the Assessing Officer to verify the records and grant MAT credit accordingly. Upon review, it was found that

ACIT, Cirlce-5 (1), Hyderabad vs. Market Tools Research Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 424/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Market Tools & Research Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1935/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1866/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

Da Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80I

thereby making an adjustment of Rs.8,17,82,789/-. While doing so and casting the liability under the normal provisions of the Act, the MAT credit available u/s.115JAA of the preceding years of Rs.2,62,58,351/- was omitted to be granted. Hence the Appellant is on appeal against denial ... deduction u/s.80IA(4) and MAT credit. 4.2 In order to ascertain the correctness of the grounds made in this appeal, a notice u/s.250 was issued to the Appellant on 23/11/2023 which was responded on 08/12/2023. According to the explanation provided by the Appellant, there is no reason to deny