9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1480 - AT - Income TaxMAT credit u/s 115JAA - AO restricted MAT credit to the extent of tax portion of earlier years and not allowed surcharge and educational cess - Held that - In the current assessment year, the assessee company liable to pay income tax based on the normal computation of income, in such circumstances the assessee is eligible for MAT credit carried forwarded from earlier assessment years u/s.115JA of the Act. Under the provisions of Sec. 115JB tax components deemed to have included surcharge and educational cess. This view was considered by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan 1971 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT were words income-tax in the Finance Act of 1964 in sub-sec(2)(a) and sub-se(2)(b) of Sec. 2 would include surcharge and additional surcharge. We respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision on MAT tax credit u/s.115JAA of the Act and allow the grounds in favour of the assessee. Admission of fresh claim of deduction towards gratuity paid as same was not claimed in the original return of income - Held that - AR to substantiate the genuiness of payment supported the grounds with copies of form no.16 issued by the assessee company as employer to employees and the breakup was reflected in the profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.2011 under the schedules of personal expenses. The assessee filed extract of ICICI Bank statement in support of gratuity payments. Prime facie it is a clear case of mistake in not claiming deduction by the assessee company. Considering the provisions of law, subject to verification by the AO and we rely on the Apex Court decision CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another 2003 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT - Considering the apparent facts, factual evidence, claim of deduction and decision of Apex Court, we remit the disputed issue to the file of Assessing Officer to verify and examine the genuiness of the claim and allow deduction and Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee before passing the order - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
1. Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act. 2. Deduction for gratuity paid to employees under section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Credit under Section 115JAA: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the denial of MAT credit for surcharge, education cess, and secondary and higher education cess for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 while determining the tax payable in the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee argued that the tax for the purpose of section 115JAA includes these components and that the credit should not be restricted solely to the tax portion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid taxes under the provisions of Section 115JB for the relevant years and had brought forward MAT credit of ?2,65,46,067/-. However, the Assessing Officer limited the MAT credit to ?2,46,69,447/-, excluding surcharge and cess. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on the Vishakapatnam Tribunal's decision in 3F Industries Ltd vs. JCIT and other Delhi Tribunal decisions, which stated that MAT credit carried forward should not include surcharge and cess. The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. K. Srinivasan, which held that "income-tax" includes surcharge and additional surcharge. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the Co-ordinate Bench decision in M/s. Saint Gobain Gyproc India Ltd, which supported the inclusion of surcharge and education cess in MAT credit. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowing the assessee's grounds in favor of including surcharge and cess in MAT credit. 2. Deduction for Gratuity Paid to Employees under Section 40A(7): The second issue involved the assessee's claim for a deduction towards gratuity paid to employees, which was not claimed in the original return of income. The assessee filed an additional ground and petitioned for the admission of this fresh claim, providing documentary evidence and confirmations to support the claim. The Departmental Representative objected to the additional grounds, arguing that the assessee had not claimed this deduction during the assessment or appellate proceedings, depriving the Assessing Officer of the opportunity to verify the claim. The Tribunal, however, considered the supporting evidence and admitted the additional ground, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and Form 16 issued to employees. The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court decision in CIT vs. Shelly Products and Another, which emphasized that the Revenue's failure to frame a fresh assessment should not disadvantage the assessee. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness of the claim and directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard before passing the order. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of gratuity deduction to the Assessing Officer for verification and upholding the inclusion of surcharge and cess in MAT credit. The order was pronounced on May 19, 2016, at Chennai.
|
