TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in adopting an inconsistent approach when compared with previous years, for calculation of Minimum Alternate Tax to be carried forward. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by adopting a methodology w.r.t Minimum Alternate Tax in variation to that provided in section 115JAA and 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The only issue in the present appeal relates to determination of the point at which tax credit under section 115JAA is to be given, whether after levying surcharge and education cess on the tax calculated as per the norma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,24,302/- Total : Rs. 63,60,34,432/- Less: Already paid : Rs. 47,12,83,833/- Balance payable : Rs. 16,47,50,599/- Less: Demand created : Rs. 14,54,10,943/- Adjusted under section 143(3) Balance demand Payable : Rs. 1,93,39,656/- 5. Aggrieved by the same the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the additional demand had arisen on account of different methodology followed by the Revenue to define the term tax. The assessee argued that while for the purpose of determining tax credit under section 115JAA for Assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, surcharge and cess had been excluded, on the other hand while calculating the tax payable for the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing decisions in support of its contention. 1. DCIT Vs. Vacment India Ltd. ITA No. 93/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 dated 22.05.2014 2. Wyeth Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Mum) ITA No. 6682/11 dt. 09/01/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08. 3. DCIT Vs. Godrej Oil Palm Ltd. (Mum) in ITA No. 5098/13 dt. 14/01/2015 for Assessment year 2011-12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the finding of the Agra Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Vacment India Ltd. (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in its order dt. 29/10/2014 reported at 369 ITR 304. Ld. Counsel therefore contended that the set off, of MAT credit should have been allowed to it before the levy of surcharge and cess on the tax determined as payable under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity (5+6+7) 6. The aforesaid entries leave no manner of ambiguity in regard to the method of computation of tax liability. Entry 3 requires computation of the gross tax payable. Under entry 4, credit is required to be given under section 115JAA of the Act of the tax paid in earlier years. Entry 5 requires a computation of the tax payable after credit under section 115JAA of the Act. The matter is placed beyond doubt by the parenthesis, which indicates 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the form ITR-6 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the said case and held that as per form ITR-6, the MAT credit has to be given against the gross tax payable exclusive of surcharge/cess and only after the MAT credit tax liability, the surcharge and cess has to be calculated for the purpose of working out the grand tax liability. We also find merit and substance in the alternative contention of the assessee that if the MAT credit is taken into account without including the surcharge and education cess then the surcharge and education cess on the tax liability has to be calculated only after allowing the MAT credit. Alternatively, the amount of MAT credit should also include surcharge and education cess for the purpose of allowing the credit agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax payable on the book profit of the assessee. The issue in that case did not relate to the point at which MAT credit was to be adjusted against the tax payable by the assessee, therefore the decision rendered in the case of M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would not apply in the present case. We may add that the issue before us pertains to rectification being made under section 154 and it is trite law that only errors which are apparent from the record can be rectified under these proceedings. Even if for a moment, the decision in the case of M/s Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra)may be considered to be applicable to the assesses case, though we have held it otherwise it is evident that there are conflicting views on the iss....