TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluding surcharge and cess resulting short grant of MAT credit of Rs. 21,70,98,794/- 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the order passed u/s 154 of the Act was in connection with a debatable issue and not mistake apparent from records. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Order u/s.154 was passed to grant MAT credit basis the assessment records and the said order was not specifically to decide on the specific issue of whether the MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act will be inclusive of surcharge and Cess. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the recent jurisdictional orders of Hon'ble ITAT on the specific issue whether the MAT credit gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it u/s. 115JAA of the Act brought forward from earlier years is to be set off against tax on total income including surcharge and education cess instead of adjusting the same from tax on total income before charging such surcharge and cess. 5. In the case of M/s. Scope International Pvt. Ltd., (supra) the Hon'ble Madras High Court considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Srinivasan [83 ITR 346] held that MAT credit has to be given including the amount of surcharge and education cess. 6. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Virtusa (India) (P.) Ltd., v. DCIT (supra) taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. K. Srinivasan (supra) wherein the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. We also find that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case referred to supra, had held that meaning of word 'surcharge' is nothing but an 'additional tax'. In our considered opinion, this understanding of surcharge and cess being included as part of the tax gets further sanctified by the amendment which has been brought in Section 234B of the Act in Explanation 1 Clause 5 while defining the expression 'assessed tax'." 8. In the case of M/s. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd., v. ACIT (supra) the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal held as under: "4. We have gone through the facts of this case. We have been called upon to decide in this case the correct manner of computing tax liability and also amount of credit available u/s 115JA keeping in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... setting off amount of credit available u/s 115JAA was worked out in three different methods. We find that the following working shows the appropriate method of computing tax liability and setting off amount of credit available u/s 115JAA:- COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY ON TOTAL INCOME AS PER INCOMETAX ACT, 1961 1 Total Income Rs. 1,093,157,260 2 Tax Payable on total income a Tax at normal rates Rs. 327,839,585 b Tax at special rates - c Tax payable on total income Rs. 327,839,585 3 Surcharge on 2c Rs. 32,783,959 4 Education cess ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra) is emanating from the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 154/143(1) of the Act. 10. On a perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) we noticed that Ld.CIT(A) denied claim of the assessee for the reason that there is a contrary view taken by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Richa Global [54 SOT 185] and therefore the issue is debatable. We observed that this decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal was rendered for A.Y. 2010-11. However, in the case on hand the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2014-15 and this decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case for the reason that the Format of ITR-6 prior to A.Y. 2012-13 was designed in such a manner that the tax liabilities in Pa....