← 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

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

held now. 8. The learned AO has erred in fact and in law in not allowing set off of brought forward MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act as per return as claimed by the appellant, it is submitted that it be so held now. 8.1. The learned AO erred ... appreciating that the assessment orders for Ay 2016-17, to which MAT credit pertains, is in appeal and the disputed issues have not reached finality. It is submitted that it be so held now. 9. The learned AO has erred in granting short credit of tax deducted at source

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

held now. 8. The learned AO has erred in fact and in law in not allowing set off of brought forward MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act as per return as claimed by the appellant, it is submitted that it be so held now. 8.1. The learned AO erred ... appreciating that the assessment orders for Ay 2016-17, to which MAT credit pertains, is in appeal and the disputed issues have not reached finality. It is submitted that it be so held now. 9. The learned AO has erred in granting short credit of tax deducted at source

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

held now. 8. The learned AO has erred in fact and in law in not allowing set off of brought forward MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act as per return as claimed by the appellant, it is submitted that it be so held now. 8.1. The learned AO erred ... appreciating that the assessment orders for Ay 2016-17, to which MAT credit pertains, is in appeal and the disputed issues have not reached finality. It is submitted that it be so held now. 9. The learned AO has erred in granting short credit of tax deducted at source

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the assessee’s case in not granting or allowing the benefit of the MAT Credit available to the assessee to extent of Rs. 1,87,77,71,841/- (as per return of income of A.Y 2017-18) u/s 115AA ... disallowance. Further, the deduction under Chapter VI-A has been restricted to Rs.25,02,27,500/- instead of the correct Rs.28,81,77,500/-, MAT credit of Rs.1,87,77,71,841/- has not been granted, and the total income has been taken from the intimation u/s 143(1) rather

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the assessee’s case in not granting or allowing the benefit of the MAT Credit available to the assessee to extent of Rs. 1,87,77,71,841/- (as per return of income of A.Y 2017-18) u/s 115AA ... disallowance. Further, the deduction under Chapter VI-A has been restricted to Rs.25,02,27,500/- instead of the correct Rs.28,81,77,500/-, MAT credit of Rs.1,87,77,71,841/- has not been granted, and the total income has been taken from the intimation u/s 143(1) rather

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the assessee’s case in not granting or allowing the benefit of the MAT Credit available to the assessee to extent of Rs. 1,87,77,71,841/- (as per return of income of A.Y 2017-18) u/s 115AA ... disallowance. Further, the deduction under Chapter VI-A has been restricted to Rs.25,02,27,500/- instead of the correct Rs.28,81,77,500/-, MAT credit of Rs.1,87,77,71,841/- has not been granted, and the total income has been taken from the intimation u/s 143(1) rather

Dabur India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT/DCIT, Delhi

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

ITA 3085/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dabur India Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 7 (1), 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaacd0474C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A), Kochi [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Appeal Filed Against Order Passed U/S 143(1) Is Infructuous As The Order Is Merged With The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) R.W.S 144B. 2. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Chandan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act was passed by the CPC by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35(1) and not allowed MAT credit to the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and the same was not acted upon

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 914/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee's contention that no expenditure

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi (Present Jurisdiction - the Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 913/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Dehi (Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 850/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

Dcie Circle-2(1)(1), Ahemdabad, Vejalpur vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

DCIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifesciences Limited Shivarth Ambit, Bodakdev Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 848/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee's contention that no expenditure

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Eris Lifescience Limited Shivarth Ambit, Ahmedabad

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 847/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR & Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80

disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order, the CIT(A) first dealt with the section 14A disallowance. After analyzing the assessee’s contention that no expenditure

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

section 155(18) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AO CIT (A)has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has reduced the amount of MAT credit to be carried forward to the extent of incremental taxes arising on account of disallowance of Health & Education Cess in the current assessment year ... paid higher amount of taxes in the final year of utilisation of MAT Credit. 8. The Ld. AO/ CIT(A) has erred in levying penalty under section 270A without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not under- reported the income as per the exclusions provided under section 270A

Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5900/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S. Hollister Medical Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income India Pvt. Ltd. B-376, 3Rd Tax, Circle-11(1), Floor, Nirman Vihar, C.R. Building, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aabch8555K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143

decide the issue as per provisions of law. 6. The appeal on ground no.2 is against for not granting of carry forward of MAT Credit. On this issue, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief synopsis, which is reproduced as under:- “It is submitted that the Appellant ... reported I MAT credit of INR 30,95,589/- in its Rol. After the allowance of the deduction of ESOP expenses, the MAT credit will be increased to INR 47,61,175/-. The Ld. AO in the computation sheet has not allowed the carry forward of MAT credit, without assigning

Balaji Formalin Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 956/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 956/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

shown return loss at Rs. (-)1,62,09,031. b.) The learned A.O. has erred in reducing the return loss by MAT Credit of Rs. 1,29,09,468 (F.Y. 2016-17 Rs. 65,82,448 Plus F.Y. 2017-18 Rs. 63,27,020) on the ground that MAT Credit ... deduction from total income under normal provision of the Act and assessing the loss at Rs. (-)32,99,563. In as much as, MAT Credit of earlier years was accounted in Books of Accounts by Crediting the same to Profit and Loss A/c. and Debiting to MAT Credit

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT erred in directing the learned AO to verify the facts and disallow the MAT credit to the extent of INR 11,146,575. 2.3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned PCIT erred ... records revealed that for the year under consideration, the assessee had paid taxes as per the MAT provisions and claimed carry forward of MAT credit amounting to Rs.2,32,20,860/-. The assessment was completed at total income of Rs.32,17,83,625/- after making an addition

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

final assessment order dated 26.09.2024 has erroneously/incorrectly: a. Charged surcharge @12% instead of applicable 7% on income tax as payable; b. Restricted the MAT Credit to Rs. 42,15,300 instead of brought forward MAT credit of Rs.1 ,93,85,826 as was available under section 115JAA ... Surcharge erroneously/incorrectly taken @12% instead of applicable 7% on income tax as payable (refer to computation attached with impugned final assessment order); b) MAT Credit incorrectly restricted to Rs. 42,15,299 instead of taking into accountant absorbed brought forward MAT credit of Rs.1,93,85,802 as was available