TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th October 2007, declaring total income of Rs. 1311,74,12,026, under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 1853,57,44,722. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while verifying the return of income and computation of income filed by the assessee found that the assessee had claimed Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit of Rs. 20,12,95,237, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. However, while computing tax on book profit under section 115JB of the Act, the Assessing Officer allowed MAT credit under section 115JAA of the Act for an amount of Rs. 6,99,46,873. The assessee challenged the reduction of MAT credit in an appeal filed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by virtue of amalgamation, the assessee steps into the shoes of amalgamating company. Thus, it was submitted, carried forward MAT credit of amalgamating company i.e., Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd., was rightly allowed to the assessee. Of course, the assessee also raised various jurisdictional issues relating to exercise of power under section 263 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, however, learned CIT was not impressed and held that the carried forward MAT credit of amalgamating company i.e., Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. amounting to Rs. 6,99,46,873, cannot be set-off against the tax computed on the book profit of the assessee, as, section 115JAA of the Act does not specifically provide for carry forward and set-off ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order, the Assessing Officer has simply implemented the directions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the set-off of MAT credit. Therefore, the order giving effect to having been passed in pursuance to the directions of learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i) CIT v/s Alagendran Finance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 001 (SC); ii) CIT v/s ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Lark Chemicals Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Dena Bank, ITA no.2412/2013 (Bom.); and v) CIT v/s Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 290 (Kar.). 5. Further, the learned Counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 263 of the Act is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as it was completed within a period of two years from the date of order giving effect to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Departmental Representative submitted, even assessee's contention that the order giving effect to passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised as it was as per direction of learned Commissioner (Appeals), is not acceptable since the issue was not decided by learned Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of learned CIT. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to the assessee. Therefore, assessee's contention that the limitation should be counted from the original assessment order passed on 22nd December 2010, in our view, is unacceptable. As regards the contention of learned Authorised Representative that the order giving effect to passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised since it was passed as per the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we are unable to sustain such argument. As could be seen from the facts narrated above, before learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee had raised a ground claiming MAT credit of Rs. 58,10,53,744, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. While deciding the said ground, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly observed that in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted company. On a reading of the provisions of section 115JAA of the Act, we do not find any such restriction with regard to allowance of MAT credit of an amalgamating company at the hands of the amalgamated company. Rather, a plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that MAT credit is allowed to be carried forward for a specific period. In case of Skol Breweries Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, while deciding identical issue has held that carried forward MAT credit of the amalgamating company can be claimed by the amalgamated company. Similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Adani Gas Ltd. (supra). If we consider the issue in the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there c....