TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) Chennai in I.T.A.No.2549/Mds/2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted on 18.12.2018 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is right in confirming that MAT credit under Section 115JAA includes surcharge and education cess instead of excluding surcharge and education cess?" 2. We have heard M/s.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, appearing for the respondent / assessee. 3. Identical question was considered by us in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. M/s.Scope International Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge and cess. 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the tax liability discharged during the assessment year 2009-10 was based on Section 115JB of the Act, as the tax calculated under the MAT provisions was higher than the tax calculated as per normal provisions of income tax and that this resulted in a MAT credit to the extent the tax liability under the MAT provisions higher than the tax liability under normal tax provisions to be carried forward for adjustment during the subsequent assessment years. It was further contended that while calculating the MAT credit, the Assessing Officer considered only the tax amount without considering the surcharge and cess under normal tax provisions and MAT provisions and that this resulted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the order passed by the CIT(A). 10. The Revenue is before us contending that surcharge and cess should not be included and that the decision in the case of K.Srinivasan would not be applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the argument advanced before us is that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal ought not to have followed the decision in the case of K.Srinivasan, which was rendered in the context of Section 2 of the Act whereas Section 11JAA of the Act was inserted subsequently with retrospective effect from 01.4.1997. 11. Section 2(43) of the Act defines 'tax' in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965 and any subsequent assessment year to mean income-tax chargeable under the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution. It was pointed out that the word 'surcharge' has been used to either increase the rates of income tax and super tax or to increase these taxes. It was also pointed out that according to Article 271, notwithstanding anything in Articles 269 and 270, the Parliament may, at any time, increase any of the duties or taxes referred to in those Articles by a surcharge for the purpose of the Union and the whole proceeds of any such surcharge shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the distinction made by the High Court in the case and held that the distinction made by the High Court that the surcharges are levied only under the Finance Act and income tax under the Act may not ....