2015 (1) TMI 1299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nit, Mumbai ("ACIT") of setting off the amount of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under the provisions of section 115JAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 1,83,39,173 against the total tax liability computed after including surcharge and education cess. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that the learned ACIT in arriving at the final tax liability ought to have granted MAT credit and ought to have levied the applicable surcharge and education cess on the balance tax after the deduction of the MAT credit. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the appellant's alternative and without prejudice contention that if the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tively, the Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the amount of MAT should also be enhanced by the surcharge and cess then the credit be given against the tax liability which is inclusive of surcharge and cess. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that as per section 4 of the Income Tax Act, the tax includes any levy, surcharge or cess, therefore, for the purpose of MAT credit, the tax liability has to be considered inclusive of surcharge and cess. He has relied upon the orders of authorities below. 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 liability inclusive of surcharge and cess and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... '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 substantial question of law and is, accor....