2015 (2) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's action of allowing credit for Minimum Alternative Tax paid to the extent of Rs. 36,81,362/- as against the Appellant's claim for Rs. 66,36,027/-. 1:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject it is entitled to credit for Minimum lternative Tax paid at Rs. 66,36,027/- and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer accordingly. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant credit for Minimum Alternative Tax paid in accordance with law and to re-compute its tax liability for the year accordingly. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer to give effect to the orders of this Tribunal and CIT (A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 and accordingly grant the MAT credit to the assessee. 4. Ground no. 2 is regarding granting MAT credit against the tax liability prior to levy of surcharge and education cess. 5. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Limited Vs. ACIT vide order dated 09.01.2015 in para 4 and 5 as under:- "4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that the authorities below held that the MAT credit is allowable against the tax liabil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that tax payable under entry 5 is to be 'arrived at by deducting the credit under section 115JAA of the Act (under entry 3) from the gross tax payable (under entry 4). The surcharge 'is computed on the amount reflected in entry 5. 7 The Tribunal has noted that from the next assessment year, the assessment year 2012-13, the positiori was materially altered but, in the present case, since the dispute related to the assessment year 2011-12, the method of computation, as directed by the Commissioner {Appeals) was plainly in accordance with the methodology as provided in ITR-6. 'The Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has, hence, not committed any error. The appeal-will not give rise' to any ....