“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

ACIT (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1908/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Bhandar Power Ltd. Income Tax, 14Th Floor, Essar House, Circle 6(1)(2), 11, K. K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400034 (Pan: Aaacb6693B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Fca & Shri Tarang Mehta, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Delhi, Vide Order Dated 25.01.2018 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito 6(1)(4), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2016, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Income Tax Act Of Rs. 203,13,43,740/-Without Considering The Fact That The Provisions Of Section 801A(10) Is Clearly Attracted In This Case Hence The Assessee Is Not Eligible For Claiming Deduction U/S 801A Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, FCA and Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(10)Section 80I

unutilised. Also, assessee has made payment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) of Rs.53.47 crores in the year under consideration. It has carried forward of MAT credit which has remained unutilised and has lapsed. Accordingly, it is manifest that there is no tax advantage as alleged by the Revenue. 13. Through

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Lahari Holiday Homes (P) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, in terms of our above observation

ITA 600/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.600/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Lahari Holiday Homes Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Vs. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacl8925C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri J J Varun, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri J J Varun, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 139Section 139(5)

assessee”) filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2021–22 under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) claiming MAT credit. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 15.02.2022, opting for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act. The Learned Assessing ... submitted that, the assessee ITA No.600/Hyd/2025 4 had initially filed its original return under MAT provisions and claimed MAT credit. Subsequently, only in the revised return the assessee opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act. However, CBDT Circular No.29/2019 clearly states that once

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

ITA Nos 573 and 5754 of 2024 VIP Private Limited आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

Appellant, since, the tax liability under normal provisions of the Act, is higher than tax liability on book profits and there is Nil MAT credit balance carry forward, hence the said addition cannot be termed as "prejudicial to interest of the 4 revenue" as it does not result ... liability on account of disallowance of provision for doubtful debts while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act and since no MAT credit has been carried forward, the assessment order even if assumed to be erroneous is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3293/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

surcharge Tax payable u/s.115JB – MAT 2,09,68,56,443 Higher of the two 3,43,47,28,088 Less: MAT credit Net tax liability 3,43,47,28,088 Less: Credit u/s 91 Less: Tax Deducted Source 2,72,18,632 Balance Payable 3,40,75,09,456 Less

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T

Section 10A

under section 10AA of the Act shall be granted prior to set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. IV. Allowance of MAT credit 12. The lower authorities have erred in not allowing the credit of taxes paid under section 115JB

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &

Section 10A

Ebaotech India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6359/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Authorities Below Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Company Of The Ebao Group Which Is Globally Diversified In Insurance Software Having Its Headquarters In Shanghai, China & The Operations Of The Group Are Located In Many Countries Including India, Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan & Singapore, With Extensive Coverage In Insurance Software & Technology.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

claimed by the Appellant. 2) Without prejudice to above, The Learned Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has erred in not allowing MAT Credit of Rs. 10,04,914/- u/s. 115JAA of the I.T.Act, 1961 available for earlier years, since tax was payable at Normal Rates during

Manpowergroup Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

service provider; 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is eligible for Set off of brought forward MAT Credit entitlement u/s 115JAA of the Act which should have been allowed while cell computing the net tax payable. 7. That on the facts

Gsp Crop Science Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80G

without finding any error in appellant’s computation, and there is no prejudice to the revenue as there is no Tax impact since more MAT Credit is available to appellant. (6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case

Shri Ambika Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ambika Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 8/2, Nutun Para Road, Liluah, Aaykar Bhavan, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Howrah-711204, West Bengal Em Bypass, Kolkata-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs8452J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)

assessee is allowed. 07. The issue raised in ground no.2, is against the order of ld. CIT (A) not allowing the MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act of ₹12,94,923/- on the ground that assessee has not furnished any details when all the information qua the said MAT ... Ambika Metaliks Pvt. ltd; A.Y. 2016-17 08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that this MAT credit was claimed by the assessee u/s 115JAA of the Act of ₹12,94,923/-, which is also apparent from the order passed

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

disallowed the same under column Sh of Schedule MAT to the Return of Income. 13. That, the CPC erred in not granting the appropriate MAT credit under section 115JAA of the Act. RE: CONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS 14. That the CPC erred in enhancing interest under section 234C

Lowes Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1734/BANG/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

resulting in incorrect tax liability in the hands of the Appellant. 6. The Ld. AO has erred In non-grant of MAT credit of INR 2,25,79,720/- while arriving at the tax liability in the hands of the Appellant. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in non-grant ... liability of the assessee. Accordingly ground No.5 is allowed. Page 13 of 15 23. As per ground No.6 assessee has a grievance that MAT credit of Rs.2,25,79,720 was not granted to the assessee and further as per ground No.7 credit for TDS of Rs.2

Sportking India Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2223/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

income tax of Rs.27,00,000/- & deferred tax of Rs.49,69,000/- respectively and deduction of Rs.16,16,077/- was allowed on account of MAT credit and prior year income tax. Aggrieved with the original assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed

S C Jhonson Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 1122/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

amounts were also stated. It is further submitted that if this adjustment is made in the book profit, the assessee is entitled to the MAT credit in the future years. According to Ld.AR, AO has failed to point out any defect and merely applied other method. Ld.AR placed reliance ... amounts are also stated. It is further submitted that if this adjustment is made in the book profit, the assessee is entitled to the MAT credit in the future years. (f) At page 15 to 16 of the Assessment Order (Point 5.3.3 and 5.3.4) (page

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1850/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

Allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I & II 34. Levy of interest u/s.234C of the Act 3 35. Non grant of MAT credit ITA No. 7269/MUM/2019 Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the very outset, it is noted from the order sheet entries that though the present case ... Ground of appeal No.34 is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In so far as the Grounds of appeal No.35 concerning non grant of MAT credit, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case

Eclerx Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4314/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4314/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Eclerx Services Limited Unit No.401, 4Th Office Level, Building No.11, Serene Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sez Mind, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 708 Pan : Aaace7932L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

being heard or to justify the bonafide reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Ground No.3— Non-grant of MAT credit 3.1. Without prejudice to the ohm, and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon.ble CIT(A) erred in upholding ... rectification order passed by the learned AO, disallowing the MAT credit of INR 62,76,431. 3 Eclerx Services Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai 32. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter