“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

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 698/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

applicability of provisions of Section 14A. iv. Claim of weighted deduction in respect of Scientific Research expenditure u/s. 35(2AB). v. Setoff of MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the I.T. Act. “ 6. Assessee Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of chemicals as in the past. The principal

Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 9A(3)

unabsorbed depreciation The Ld. NFAC has erred in not setting-off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 10. The Ld. NFAC has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in computing the amount of MAT credit to be carried forward without including surcharge and cess. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute the amount of MAT credit to be carried ... forward including surcharge and cess.” Ground No. 10 pertains to computation of MAT Credit. We have considered the rival submissions. Assessing Officer is directed to re-computed the amount of MAT Credit to be carried forward, after including surcharge and cess as per law. Ground

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

March 31, 2012) Less: Fair valuation of Fixed Assets -0.98 Less: Fair valuation of GRN Liability balance -3.46 Less: Fair Valuation of MAT credit as at March 31, -6.52 2012 (As a merged entity Company will not be able to utilize the MAT credit lying in IWL books, since

Ab Mauri India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

transaction should be allowed as deduction. 4. Miscellaneous 4.1 The CIT(A) erred in not considering the Appellant's plea regarding non-grant of MAT credit amounting to Rs.1,20,36,714 pertaining to AY 2009-10. 4.2 The CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to verify ... claim and allow the MAT credit available to the Appellant. 4.3 The CIT(A) ought to have issued suitable directions to the AO for non-grant of TDS credit amounting to Rs.8,80,307 for A Y 2009-10. 5. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant

M/S Sicagen India Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 6(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 271/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. C.P. Priya (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

added in the normal income. However, the same was not added back while computing the Book Profits u/s 115JB which resulted into excess MAT credit. 3. The assessee submitted that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt income but notional expenditure of 1% of average investments was disallowed

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

with the other provisions of the Act. He observed that on perusal of the ITNS-150A revealed that the assessing officer had given a MAT credit of ₹.19,47,82,306/- against the demand of Rs 20,35,29,816/- He observed that the MAT credit pertained to A.Ys

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2169/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under Income-tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e., before 1-4- 2007), provided for set off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e., after the computation of interest under section 234B. This was directly contrary to a plain

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

M/S Well Wisher Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1912/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. The Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is seeking set off of MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act. This aspect has also been set aside to the file of ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A) to decide

Dy CIT 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Navin Flourine International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6814/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Navin Flourine Room No. 217/212, 1St International Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suntech Centre, Near Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai- Garware Plastics, 37/40, 400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E)], Mumbai-400057. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp0464B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod Prabhudesai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 17, Mumbai Dated 20.08.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Given Relief To The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao Who Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 Pursuant To The Order Of The Ld. Cit-07, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 24.01.2014 Wherein The Ld. Cit Found Fault With The Action Of The Ao In Respect Of Original Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2011 Wherein The Ao A.Y. 2009-10 M/S. Navin Flourine International Ltd. Assessed The Total Income Of Assessee At Rs.71,09,93,779/-. The Ld Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Found Fault With The Original Assessment On The Following Four (4) Issues: -

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 263

found fault with the original assessment on the following four (4) issues: - “i. MAT credit of Rs.19,88,06,245/- has been allowed as there is no MAT credit remaining to be carried forward from the earlier assessment year. This has been done without making any enquiry. ii. Fixed assets ... issues, we reverse the revision order passed by CIT under section 263 of the Act but sustain the order on the issue of MAT Credit.” [We further note that AO has passed rectification order u/s 154 of the Act regarding the MAT credit which we are not concerned in this

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

extent of 15%. (iii) Ground No.10: Disallowance u/s. 14A. (iv) Ground No.11 : Non-grant of deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. (v) Ground No.12: MAT credit being not granted. (vi) Ground No.13 : Short credit of TDS. 3. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies ... verify and allow deduction u/s. 80G towards the donations made by the assessee in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. MAT credit 22. The AO is directed to grant relief of additional MAT credit on the recomputed income as per the directions given above. Short credit

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3346/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920

assessee. IT(TP)A No.3346/Bang/2018 Page 13 of 22 9. By way of ground of appeal no. 2, the Appellant submits Minimum Alternate Tax ('MAT') credit of INR 1,21,42,780 brought forward from AY 2011-12 may kindly be set off! adjusted against tax liability computed ... this Hon'ble Bench may after due verification/ examination of documents/ records, accept the claim of the assessee and direct allowance of adjustment of MAT credit of INR 1,21,42,780 brought forward from earlier years against tax liability of present assessment year 2014-15 as per ground

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

ITA 2575/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla and Shri Pratik PodarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 35Section 40

under: ―8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing surcharge and cess for MAT credit computation, relying on an ITAT order passed in violation of judicial discipline by ignoring an earlier decision of a coordinate bench rendered in the case ... under Minimum Alternative Tax(MAT) provision contained in Section 115JB of the Act. Assessing Officer restricted the MAT Credit granted to the Assessee under Section 115JAA of the Act to INR 18,53,96,441/- being difference between the gross tax Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 under normal provisions

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 213/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 10ASection 115J

consideration of actual revenue from export activity of Rs.1336,90,45,871 (i.e. before exclusion of aforesaid expenditure) as export turnover (vii) Not recomputing MAT credit u/s. 115JAA. Page 3 of 19 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) partially allowed the appeal

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

against INR 2,14,90,666 claimed in the return of income. 7.3. That the Learned AO erred in not allowing MAT credit of INR 86,35,946 claimed in the return of income. 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in manufacturing of Seat belt

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 119Section 139(5)

particularly on matters in relation to carry forward 5 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Nath Industries Ltd. losses, unabsorbed depreciation and MAT credit etc. However, the AO/Ld. CIT(A) denied the same by relying on section 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Act read with Circular