“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

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

raised as Additional Additional ground) ground) 7 Weighted deduction Ground No.5 - - - u/s.35(2AB) for clinical (raised as Trial expenditure Additional ground) 8 Allowance of MAT credit to Ground No.6 - Ground No.5 Ground No.5 include surcharge & & 7 (raised as (raised as (raised as Education cess and Carry Additional Additional Additional forward ... Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd the additional 100% of the deduction since the assessee in the computation of income has already claimed 100%. Allowance of MAT credit 17. The assessee is contending the issue of allowance of credit towards Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) is inclusive of surcharge and education cess

J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

Usv P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-C-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blem/S. Usv Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk 1908, 19Th Floor Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle- 5(2) V. M/S. Usv Private Limited 1908, 19Th Floor Arvind Vitthal Gandhi Chowk Air India Building, Nariman Point Govandi (East), Mumbai- 400088 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Aaacu1366N

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 35Section 37Section 37(1)

period 1.1.2018 to 31.3.2018) ii. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act ₹.14,06,23,314/- iii. MAT credit claim of ₹. 44,06,59,427/- out of total MAT credit claim of ₹.64,97,64,065/- was disallowed. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT ... Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on Analysis & Testing charges Rs 3,29,50,220. Balance disallowance made by AO was reversed. 3) MAT credit as claimed by the Assessee was fully allowed. 4) Additional Ground No 1 on allowability of Education Cess was admitted and allowed. 5) Additional

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Hearing) Enviro Technology Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Plot No. 2413/14, Gidc Estate, Centralized Processing Centre, Ankleshwar – 393002, Gujarat. Banglore. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace4126G Appellant By Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 24/04/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)

Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] erred in dismissing ground of appeal no.1 in respect of short-granting of set-off of MAT credit under section 115JAA of the Act by holding that the same does not arise from the order passed under section ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays that the set-off of MAT credit under section 115JA ought to be granted on the 28/SRT/2023/AY.2016-17 Enviro Technology Limited difference between the tax payable as per normal provisions of the Act and book profit as per section

Asus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7147/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7147/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asus India Private Ito Ward- 9(1) (4), Limited. Mumbai. 402, Supreme Chamber, बनाम/ Veera Desai Road, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aajca 6450C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah, Ms. Tejal Saraf, Ms. Riddhi M Maru Shri Anoop Hiwase (Sr. Dr) प्रत्यथी की ओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवधई की तधरीख/ 21.03.2023 : Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 14.06.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1) This Appeal Is Filed By Asus India Private Limited [Assessee/ Appellant] Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144C (13) R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 On 26Th October, 2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 Asus India Private Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah

Section 115JSection 144CSection 92C

return was picked up for scrutiny. Subsequently, the assessee revised return of income on 31/03/2015 for change in carry forwarding of MAT credit. 3) As the assessee engaged in the business of distribution of Asus Group products in India whereby it purchases Notebooks and Tablets from its associated enterprises

Bengal & Assam Co. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1631/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. RFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

Section 14A

also without appreciating the facts of the case. 7. That the CIT(A) also erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow MAT Credit as was available to the company as per law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment order came to be passed

Havells India Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT Central Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1070/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

affidavit in this regard that no revenue benefit has been derived by the assessee from the alleged error in the order and no extra MAT credit has been availed in the later years, we find merit in the plea of the assessee that no prejudice has caused to the revenue

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

such tax" as appearing in section 140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

including the sumo to addition made by the appellant in its return of income. 7. The learned assessing officer ought to have granted MAT credit of merged entities. 8. The learned assessing officer/DRP has erred in short granting tax deduction at source credit of ₹ 48,157,988/– including TDS credit

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 263

were not enquired by the AO. 32. We also observe that the issue of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 225/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. Suvibha Nolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 09/09/2021 rectifying the errors crept in while passing the assessment order in respect of the figures in MAT credits, refund claimed and demand raised in ITBA. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

were not enquired by the AO. 32. We also observe that the issue of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.l,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although

Cj Darcl Logistics Limited, Haryana vs. Circle 7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 288/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234B

pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ground l: Computation of MAT credit under section 115JAA of the Act excluding surcharge and cess, resulting short grant of MAT credit of INR 36,42,128 1.1 That on the facts ... erred in upholding the adjustments made by the CPC in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act i.e., set off of MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act excluding surcharge and cess resulting in short grant of MAT credit of INR 36,42,128. 1.2 That

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Lalit Mahajan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands

ITA 6936/DEL/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Ld. C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

from 6,70,15,431/- to Rs.5,80,92,435/- on the ground that surcharge and education cess are not adjustable while giving the MAT credit of earlier years. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said adjustment made by the Assessing Officer, before the ld. Commissioner who vide impugned ... order allowed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under: The Ground Nos. 1 to 2.2 pertain to MAT credit of 5. Surcharge and Education Cess not allowed by AO to be adjusted during the year under consideration. During the appellate proceedings, appellant has explained the facts, reproduced

Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

grant TDS credit in accordance with law with a direction to the assessee to file requisite details. The assessee also seeks correct MAT credit. The Ld. AO is directed to grant the same in accordance with law. Both these grounds stand allowed for statistical purposes. The grounds relating to charging

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

beyond that for the assessment year under appeal. Corporate Tax 20. The learned AO erred in granting the set off of MAT credit to the extent of Rs.1,19,23,503 as against MAT credit eligible for set off of Rs.1,94,76,632 under section 115JAA ... ground nos. 21 & 22 are consequential in nature. For Ground No.20, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to grant MAT credit in accordance with law. In all the other grounds, the assessee is aggrieved by certain Transfer Pricing Adjustments. 2. The Ld. AR assailed

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 700/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 154

arising out of separate orders dated 08th June, 2022, challenging the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer for not granting MAT credit of Rs.2,70,92,150 for the assessment years 2013-2014 and the consequent effect for the MAT credit for assessment years ... Since the issue for the rectification for assessment year 2013- 2014 for not granting MAT credit as claimed by the assessee in its return of income for assessment year 2013-2014 in pursuance of section 153A of the I.T.Act bearing the effect in the assessment year 2 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 699/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 154