← 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

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As "Jrg Securities Ltd"), Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 243/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

reasoning and findings given by us therein, this grounds of appeal stands allowed. 31. Grounds of appeal 3 challenges denial of brought forward MAT credit for the year under consideration. No material was shown to us the availability of brought forward MAT credit. In view of above

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 242/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

reasoning and findings given by us therein, this grounds of appeal stands allowed. 31. Grounds of appeal 3 challenges denial of brought forward MAT credit for the year under consideration. No material was shown to us the availability of brought forward MAT credit. In view of above

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

reasoning and findings given by us therein, this grounds of appeal stands allowed. 31. Grounds of appeal 3 challenges denial of brought forward MAT credit for the year under consideration. No material was shown to us the availability of brought forward MAT credit. In view of above

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

reasoning and findings given by us therein, this grounds of appeal stands allowed. 31. Grounds of appeal 3 challenges denial of brought forward MAT credit for the year under consideration. No material was shown to us the availability of brought forward MAT credit. In view of above

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

reasoning and findings given by us therein, this grounds of appeal stands allowed. 31. Grounds of appeal 3 challenges denial of brought forward MAT credit for the year under consideration. No material was shown to us the availability of brought forward MAT credit. In view of above

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2800/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

return of Income and processed in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Incorrect amount of MAT credit utilization 11. The learned AO erred in granting credit of MAT credit utilization under section 115JAA of the Act to the tune

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

could not have been said to be resulting in increasing the taxable income of the appellant for the extant A.Y. 2013-14. Denial of MAT Credit set off 4.7 The learned CIT erred in not considering the submissions and failed to appreciate that the AO had erred in not allowing ... MAT credit carried forward Rs. 1,88,44,145/- under Section 115JAA to be set off against the tax amount calculated under the normal provisions (non MAT provisions). The computation of income and consequent demand including interest charged under Section 234 A, B and C were prima facie incorrect

Autocomp Corporation Panse Private Limited, Pune vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

could not have been said to be resulting in increasing the taxable income of the appellant for the extant A.Y. 2013-14. Denial of MAT Credit set off 4.7 The learned CIT erred in not considering the submissions and failed to appreciate that the AO had erred in not allowing ... MAT credit carried forward Rs. 1,88,44,145/- under Section 115JAA to be set off against the tax amount calculated under the normal provisions (non MAT provisions). The computation of income and consequent demand including interest charged under Section 234 A, B and C were prima facie incorrect

Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1141/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

return of Income and processed in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Incorrect amount of MAT credit utilization 11. The learned AO erred in granting credit of MAT credit utilization under section 115JAA of the Act to the tune

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.1635/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92B

Final assessment order. 10. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not allowing MAT credit brought forward from earlier years while computing tax liability as per normal provisions of the Act in the subject assessment year. 11. That

Biogenex Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 68/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022. 9. The Ld. AO/ TPO / DRP erred in not considering the MAT credit of Rs. 27,66,279/- available under section 115JB of the Act while passing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.01.2022. 10. The Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in levying interest under ... Transfer Pricing (“TP”) adjustment. b) Claim on account of unabsorbed depreciation and allowances of Rs.1,87,83,938/- u/s.35(4) of the Act. c) MAT credit of Rs.27,66,279/- u/s.115JB of the Act. 6. As far as the upward adjustment of Rs.1,05,79,088/- on account

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

directions of Hon'ble DRP Not following the directions of Hon'ble DRP in entirety in computing these total adjustment. 13. Non-grant of MAT credit available to the Company. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred ... well as in facts, in non-grant of MAT Credit available, amounting to Rs. 1,87,46,422, as set-off to the Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous calculation of interest u/s 234B of the Act. That on facts and circumstances

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

computing thee total adjustment. Note 1: Total tax effect relating to Transfer Pricing Grounds (i.e Ground 1 to 11) 13. Non-grant of MAT credit available to the Company. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred ... well as in facts, in non-grant of MAT Credit available, amounting to Rs. 33,95,196, as set-off to the Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous levy of interest u/s 234A of 1 the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

computing thee total adjustment. Note 1: Total tax effect relating to Transfer Pricing Grounds (i.e Ground 1 to 11) 13. Non-grant of MAT credit available to the Company. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred ... well as in facts, in non-grant of MAT Credit available, amounting to Rs. 33,95,196, as set-off to the Company against the tax liability determined for the captioned AY. 14. Erroneous levy of interest u/s 234A of 1 the Act. Without prejudice to the above grounds, that

Bosch Global Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: and Smt. Pratibha R – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT
Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)

granting the credit of MAT as per section 1115JAA of the Act. 31. At the outset, we note that the issue of MAT credit was raised first time before us. The lower authorities did not get the opportunity to apply their mind. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair ... play, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to allow MAT credit, if any, as per law. The assessee is . Page 14 of 14 directed to furnish the necessary details. Henc the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Navratan Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3586/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)

26AS. Appraisal report issues have been verified, status of Appeal, if any to be mentioned, penalty interest charging, carry forward of losses, MAT credit, FDR, KVP any seizure or jewellery, cash taken care of. (VIJAY KUMAR SONI) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range 8, Mumbai. 12. The Assessee thus

Utility Supply Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3585/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smiti Samant, Ld. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

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 ITA No.1850/Del/2019, 1470 &1122/Del/2020 other method

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 896/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 72Section 80G

Appellant prays that carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 72 of the Act be allowed. GROUND NO. 5: NON-GRANT OF MAT CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,14,510/-: 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred ... granting the MAT credit amounting to Rs. 6,14,510/-. 5.2. The Appellant prays that MAT credit u/s. 115JAA of the Act be granted. GROUND NO. 6: INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME: 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred

Airona Tiles Limited, Sabarkantha vs. The DCIT, Circle Himatnagar Presently the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1127/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1127/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Airona Tiles Limited The Dcit बनाम/ Ceramic City Circle Himatnagar. V/S. At & Post : Dalpur Presently The Dcit, Kathwada Road Circle-2(1)(1) Sabarkantha – 383 120 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 3712 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil N. Shah & Aatish Shah Ars Revenue By : Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By Dcit/Acit, Circle Himatnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Airona Tiles Ltd. Vs. The Dcit, Circle Himatnagar - Presently The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1) Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anil N. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 68

demand raising demand of Rs. 1,217 in not giving the working and without specifying/ deciding/ giving the details/ amount of carry forward of MAT Credit U/s.115JB, if any varied by him and we pray to order to determine the same at Rs.18,53,956 as has been shown