TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additions made by the AO which are covered issues in favour of the assessee company by the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the earlier years. Besides that, it was submitted that there are certain computational errors which have crept in while working out the tax liability though the additions were deleted by the AO while passing the assessment order. It was further submitted that the assessee has sufficient MAT Credit carried forward from the previous assessment years and where the same is taken into consideration, there won't be any final tax payable by the assessee company. 3. Coming to the specific additions made by the AO, it was submitted by the ld Counsel that the AO has made disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IA for Captive Power Plants on account of redetermination of the ALP for transfer of power and steam beside certain adjustment has been made regarding the allocation of the Head Office expenses. It was submitted that in the earlier assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, on identical issue, the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case by the Coordinate Jodhpur Bench vide order dt. 15/11/2022 in ITA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tax demand so raised will reduce substantially. It was further submitted that where the MAT credit so carried forward is taken into consideration in respect of matters such as education cess where the assessee has requested for adjustment of MAT credit, there won't be any tax payable by the assessee company. 8. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the following chart summarizing the various additions made by the AO, the corresponding tax liability, issues covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decisions of the Coordinate Benches and availability of MAT credit and prepaid taxes: S. No Particulars Amount Amount Tax Amount Issue covered by past years orders Income as per Revised Return 50,26,68,30,850 16,55,73,26,175 A. TP Additions 1. Disallowance of 80-IA deduction for Captive Power Plants (CPP) on account of: (i) ALP re-determination for transfer of: . Power (ALP rate determined at Rs. 4.57 per unit vs. HZL rate of Rs. 8.85 per unit) * Steam (ii) HQ expenses allocation 555,57,15,664 5,30,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in income while computing tax liability. (ii) Penalty / Fine: (double disallowance issue: DRP has directed AO to address the issue. AO on due verification accepted that assessee has suo moto disallowed the same and hence this does not warrant addition u/s 143(1) vide para 6.6.3 of page 43. 37,85,436 13,22,783 Total Income as per Final Assessment Order 64,87,84,83,530 21,66,32,22,089 Less: Covered matters as above (Education cess was suo moto disallowed vide Form 69 and assessee requested to adjust MAT credit against the same) 13,91,01,93,998 4,86,07,78,187 Total Income 50,96,82,89,536 16,80,24,43,898 2. MAT credit adjustment claimed in ITR not allowed in final order- 2,27,89,30,208 MAT Credit claimed in ITR 3 MAT credit adjustment claimed in Form 69 not allowed in final ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered in favour of the assessee and in respect of covered issues, the outstanding demand cannot be recovered as held by the CBDT's internal instructions as well as by various High Courts. In this regard, our reference was drawn to Instruction No. 1914 dt. 02/12/1993 wherein it has been provided that where the demand in dispute relates to the issue in applicant's favour by the Appellate Authority or a Court earlier, the stay should be granted. Further, our reference was drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 347 ITR 43 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the nature of addition resulting in the demand is a relevant consideration and normally where the same addition / disallowance / issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the appellate authority, the Revenue should not be permitted to adjust and recover the demand on the same ground. It was submitted that the same has been followed by the Coordinate Delhi Bench in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. in its order dt. 15/02/2021 wherein it was held that where the majority demand is arising from the issues impugned in all the appeals are mostly covered by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee company to be adjusted for the impugned assessment year against the current year liability and the remaining has been carried forward. We therefore have a situation where there is MAT credit of Rs. 40,12,26,00,452/- and outstanding tax and interest liability of Rs 11,70,66,26,706/- and even where the whole of the outstanding tax and interest liability is adjusted against the carry forward MAT credit, there would still be an amount of Rs. 28,41,59,73,746/- of remaining MAT credit available with the assessee company. There is nothing available on record as to the reasons why the AO has not adjusted or the reasons which prevented him from adjusting the MAT credit so available to the assessee company as so claimed in the return of income and more specifically, against the outstanding tax and interest demand so raised on the assessee company and before determining any amount payable by the assessee company and raising the impugned tax demand. We therefore have a situation where there is prima facie sufficient MAT credit available to the assessee company as so claimed in the return of income and in such a situation, where the MAT credit so available is sufficient enough to offse....