← All Phrases

“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
71
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
59
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
39
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
28
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
26
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
23
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
15
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

Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited(Succesor in Interest to Thomsan Reuters International Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3127/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Asawari KadamFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 220Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C

After completion of the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, the ld. A.O. did not allow the Mat credit of the assessee which wasbrought forwarded from the assessment years 2009-10 to 2010-11. The assessee also 4 ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd ... assessment year 2011-12. The order was passed by the ITAT dated 03.08.2018 in favour of the assessee. The assessee was not allowed a MAT credit from the earlier financial year which will be adjudicated from the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee was also filed a rectification petition

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

allow the ground taken by the assessee. 8. Ground No.13 is with regard to non-grant of set off of accumulated Minimum Accumulated Tax (‘MAT’) credit. In this regard, assessee wants the direction to AO to grant accumulated MAT credit claimed in the return of income. We accede

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 40

allow the ground taken by the assessee. 8. Ground No.13 is with regard to non-grant of set off of accumulated Minimum Accumulated Tax (‘MAT’) credit. In this regard, assessee wants the direction to AO to grant accumulated MAT credit claimed in the return of income. We accede

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erred in not setting-off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 2008-09. 9. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 9.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier ... respect of the claim of assessee in respect of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, set off of MAT credit, and non-granting of foreign tax credit. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the above claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 3. Erroneous non-set-off of MAT credit entitlement 3.1. The Ld. AO has erred in law in not setting-off MAT credit entitlement pertaining to earlier AYs. The Hon'ble Page ... respect of the claim of assessee in respect of set off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed deprecation, set off of MAT credit, and non-granting of foreign tax credit. We direct the Ld.AO to consider the above claim in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish

M/S. G M Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

filed its return of income on 17th October, 2016, declaring income of ₹24,79,36,350/-. Total tax Liability was computed at Rs 85805812/-, MAT credit was claimed at Rs 49558162/- , total advance tax paid was shown at Rs 37051371 and refund due was claimed at Rs 803721/-. G.M. Fabrics ... filed. 07. On 19/01/2018, assessee filed return under Section 139(4) of the Act at the same total income, however, claimed MAT credit of ₹1,18,34,786/- and balance tax liability was worked out at ₹7,39,71,026/-. Thus, the additional tax liability

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

above, the Ld. AO / Ld. DRP has erred in law and facts of the case, in not providing relief of additional Minimum Alternate Tax ("MAT") credit of INR 12,142,780 brought forward from earlier years, which the Appellant is entitled to set off against the excess tax liability computed ... with law. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No.5 raised by assessee is in respect of additional mat credit of ₹ 1,21,42,780/- bought forward from earlier year that has been denied. 6.1 It is submitted that as the issue alleged

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

also raised a grievance against (i) incorrect levy of education cess, including secondary and higher education cess; and (ii) inadvertent error not adjusting the MAT credit, but as this addition was made in the original assessment order dated 30th March 2021, and the order impugned in the present appeal

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

which is consequential in nature. 9. The ground No.13 is challenging the action of the ld. AO in not granting the required MAT credit u/s.115JAA of the Act. We find that this requires factual verification and hence, the ld. AO is hereby directed to grant MAT credit u/s.115JAA

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

operative period i.e. before commencement of the commercial operation, is revenue in nature, which qualifies for capitalization among various fixed assets. Reduction in MAT credit – INR 7,300,338 3. Software expenses for INR 4,591,040 (net of depreciation) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

revenue therefrom are inextricably linked to the operations and maintenance of the airport. ITA No.191 & 374/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 25 Tax effect: Reduction in MAT credit - INR 145,529,837 3. Short grant of credit of taxes deducted at source The CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the above ground

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

revenue therefrom are inextricably linked to the operations and maintenance of the airport. ITA No.191 & 374/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 25 Tax effect: Reduction in MAT credit - INR 145,529,837 3. Short grant of credit of taxes deducted at source The CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the above ground

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

computing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. I agree with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same may be upheld. d. MAT Credit. The appellant contended that unrealised foreign exchange gain is not an unascertained and contingent liability. The disallowance was made

M/S on Mobile Global Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 535/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee whereas assessee has not received any surgery for during the year under consideration. It is also submitted that assessing officer has not granted MAT credit available to assessee for year under consideration despite the directions by DRP on this issue. 11. Both assessee as well as the Ld.DR submitted

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Onmobile Global Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 523/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C

assessee whereas assessee has not received any surgery for during the year under consideration. It is also submitted that assessing officer has not granted MAT credit available to assessee for year under consideration despite the directions by DRP on this issue. 11. Both assessee as well as the Ld.DR submitted

Hamlet Construction (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh
Section 115JSection 14Section 80I

ground that the same is not claimed at the time of filing of return of income and hence the appellant is not eligible to MAT credit amounting to Rs. 24,18,71,133/of earlier assessment years. 3 ITA.NO. 1315/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) Hamlet Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., (b) The learned ... assessee has submitted before Assessing Officer that in case the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is disallowed, still assessee would be entitled for MAT credit available on the record. The assessee has brought to the notice of the tax authorities that assessee has carried forward MAT credit

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 606/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue-in- dispute involved in the appeal relates to computation of book profit, for which the corresponding MAT credit has already been availed in subsequent M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., assessment years and therefore, the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal. The learned Counsel

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1076/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue-in- dispute involved in the appeal relates to computation of book profit, for which the corresponding MAT credit has already been availed in subsequent M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., assessment years and therefore, the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal. The learned Counsel

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Metrochem Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 87/AHD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue-in- dispute involved in the appeal relates to computation of book profit, for which the corresponding MAT credit has already been availed in subsequent M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., assessment years and therefore, the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal. The learned Counsel

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 2594/AHD/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue-in- dispute involved in the appeal relates to computation of book profit, for which the corresponding MAT credit has already been availed in subsequent M/s Metrochem Industries Ltd., assessment years and therefore, the assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal. The learned Counsel