MAT credit must be set off before interest computation, while amenity and car park receipts followed binding precedent.

Amenity charges for central air-conditioning and car park allotment receipts were treated as governed by binding precedent in the assessee's own case, with the issue resolved in favour of the Revenue. MAT credit under Section 115JAA was required to be given effect before computing interest under Sections 234B and 234C, so it had priority in the tax computation. The result was a mixed outcome: the first set of questions favoured the Revenue, while the MAT credit issue favoured the assessee, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether amenity charges paid for central air conditioning of shops were to be treated as an advance or as a trading receipt, and whether receipts for allotment of car park were to be treated as a returnable deposit; (ii) whether MAT credit was to be given priority for set-off before computing interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

Issue (i): Whether amenity charges paid for central air conditioning of shops were to be treated as an advance or as a trading receipt, and whether receipts for allotment of car park were to be treated as a returnable deposit.

Analysis: The issue was governed by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case, where identical questions relating to amenity charges and car park receipts had already been decided on the Revenue's interpretation. The factual and legal position was treated as concluded by that binding precedent.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether MAT credit was to be given priority for set-off before computing interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

Analysis: The issue was covered by the Supreme Court's ruling that MAT credit under Section 115JAA is to be excluded while computing assessed tax for the purpose of Sections 234B and 234C. The Court accepted that MAT credit must be given effect before charging interest on the shortfall in advance tax.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the first set of questions and failed on the MAT credit questions, resulting in a mixed outcome with no order as to costs.

---