https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33295 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that MAT credit should be adjusted before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C. It held that Rule 12(1)(a) and Form No.1 cannot override substantive provisions of the Act, emphasizing that any inconsistency renders the rule ultra vires. The Court clarified that the legislative intent allows MAT credit to offset tax payable, not including interest. The judgment underscored that subordinate legislation must align with the enabling statute and cannot expand or contradict its provisions. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33295 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that MAT credit should be adjusted before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C. It held that Rule 12(1)(a) and Form No.1 cannot override substantive provisions of the Act, emphasizing that any inconsistency renders the rule ultra vires. The Court clarified that the legislative intent allows MAT credit to offset tax payable, not including interest. The judgment underscored that subordinate legislation must align with the enabling statute and cannot expand or contradict its provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33295