2025 (7) TMI 1741 - AT - Income Tax

Surcharge on AOP Taxed at MMR Must Follow Finance Act Slabs, Not Flat 37% Rate

Bhagirathi Enterprise Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-34 (1) (1), Mumbai

The ITAT Mumbai held that for an Association of Persons (AOP) taxed at the maximum marginal rate (MMR) of 30%, the surcharge must be applied according to ... Levying the highest rate of surcharge of 37% - marginal rate of tax applicable u/s 167B in assessing the Appellant's income in intimation u/s 143 (1) instead of 10% - As submitted that the MMR is defined under Section 2(29C) as the rate of income tax, including surcharge, applicable to the highest slab of income for an individual, AOP, or body of individuals (BOI), as specified in the Finance Act of the relevant year HELD THAT:- We find that in the case of Araadhya Jain Trust [2025 (4) TMI 648 - ITAT MUMBAI] has dealt with the issue as to whether in the case of private discretionary trust, whose income is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate, surcharge is chargeable at the highest applicable rate or at a slab rates. The Special Bench has held that the expression “if any” used in section 2(29C) has to be read not de hors but in conjunction with the computation mechanism provided under the heading surcharge on income tax' provided in section 2 of Finance Act and in case of Private Discretionary Trusts, whose income is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate, surcharge has to be computed on the income tax having reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax' appearing in Paragraph A, Part 1, First Schedule, applicable to the relevant assessment year. Applying the legal proposition so laid down in the instant case, we find that where the total income of the assessee, being the Association of Persons, is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate of 30%, surcharge has to be computed on the income tax having reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax' appearing in Paragraph A, Part 1, First Schedule, applicable to the impugned assessment year 2021-22 which is at the rate of 10% of 30% given that the total income amounting to Rs 64,02,500, exceeds fifty lacs but doesn’t exceeds one crore rupees. AO is accordingly directed to apply rate of surcharge at the rate of 10% instead of 37% as currently done and recompute the tax liability of the assessee accordingly. Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES: Whether surcharge on income tax for an Association of Persons (AOP) taxed under section 167B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be levied at the highest rate of 37% applicable to the maximum marginal rate (MMR) or at the slab rate applicable to the AOP's total income.Interpretation of the definition of 'maximum marginal rate' under section 2(29C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly whether the surcharge component must always be at the highest slab rate irrespective of the AOP's actual income.Applicability of section 167B(1) and 167B(2) regarding taxation of AOPs with indeterminate or determinate member shares and members' individual incomes exceeding specified thresholds.Whether the surcharge computation under the Finance Act's First Schedule should be applied as per the income slab of the AOP or uniformly at the highest surcharge rate when taxed at MMR.Whether the surcharge rate of 10% or 37% is correct for an AOP with total income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs but less than Rs. 1 crore, when taxed at MMR. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The surcharge on income tax for an AOP taxed under section 167B must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax' applicable to the relevant assessment year, not uniformly at the highest surcharge rate of 37% regardless of actual income.The definition of 'maximum marginal rate' under section 2(29C) includes 'the rate of income-tax (including surcharge on income-tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of income,' which must be read in conjunction with the computation mechanism provided in the Finance Act's First Schedule; thus, surcharge rates vary according to income slabs and are not automatically the highest rate for all cases taxed at MMR.Section 167B(2)(i) applies where members' shares are fixed and any member's total income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, mandating taxation of the AOP's total income at the MMR; however, surcharge computation remains linked to income slabs as per the Finance Act.The surcharge rate of 10% is applicable to an AOP whose total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs but does not exceed Rs. 1 crore, even when taxed at the MMR of 30%; the surcharge rate of 37% applies only to incomes exceeding Rs. 5 crores.The Assessing Officer's levy of surcharge at 37% on the AOP's income tax was incorrect; the surcharge must be computed at 10% as per the applicable slab rate, and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 2(29C), 167B(1), and 167B(2), and the Finance Act's First Schedule, which prescribes income tax rates and surcharge slabs for individuals, Hindu Undivided Families, AOPs, and Bodies of Individuals.The Court relied on the Special Bench decision interpreting the phrase 'including surcharge on income-tax, if any' in section 2(29C) as requiring surcharge computation according to the Finance Act's prescribed slab rates rather than a blanket application of the highest surcharge rate.The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind surcharge provisions-to impose higher contributions from higher income brackets-and rejected the Department's interpretation that would render the graduated surcharge slabs and provisos meaningless or absurd.The Court noted that the surcharge rates are linked to income slabs, and the highest surcharge rate applies only to incomes exceeding Rs. 5 crores, consistent with the Finance Act's graduated surcharge scheme.The Court distinguished prior judicial precedents relied upon by the Department, finding that the issue of surcharge rate computation on tax at MMR was not directly considered therein, and that the Special Bench's interpretation provides a harmonious and workable construction avoiding absurd results.The Court directed remand to the Assessing Officer to recompute the tax liability applying the correct surcharge rate of 10% for the relevant assessment years, consistent with the Special Bench ruling and the Finance Act's provisions.