9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 967 - HC - Income TaxSet-off of MAT Credit under Section 115JAA brought forward from earlier years 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 education cess - Held that - In determining the liability of the assessee the first step has to be determination of tax payable. The Income Tax Act contemplates self-assessment by the assessee and quarterly payment of tax in advance and the rest with the filing of the return. Interest can be realised only for the amount in default. Interest cannot be charged for an amount which has already been paid or for which the assessee is entitled to a credit. Before any question of realising interest may arise the amount of liability on account of income tax has to be ascertained. In ascertaining the liability, necessarily the amounts of surcharge and cess have to be taken into account. Once that is done the amount of tax payable has been ascertained. Then the question arises for giving credit for the amount of tax already paid in advance or credit which is statutorily available to the assessee. Only thereafter the question of any addition on account of interest might arise. This was explained by Their Lordships. It is not correct to say that the judgement in the case Tulsyan Nec Ltd. 2010 (12) TMI 23 - Supreme Court of India has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Our attention was not drawn nor was it contended that the corrected form is contrary to law. Both the forms, viz. the one which was prevalent at the relevant period of time and which was corrected for the assessment year 2012-13, could not be the correct forms. If the form of 2012-13 was correct, then the form of 2008-09 was wrong, and naturally contrary to law. Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the set-off of MAT Credit under Section 115JAA 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 education cess. Detailed Analysis: 1. MAT Credit Set-Off Against Tax on Total Income Including Surcharge and Education Cess: The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 115JAA and whether MAT credit should be adjusted before or after the imposition of surcharge and education cess. The assessee argued that MAT credit should be adjusted from the tax on total income before adding surcharge and education cess, relying on the form of the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008-09, which suggested that credit under Section 115JAA should be allowed before adding surcharge and cess. The Tribunal, however, dismissed this contention, holding that MAT credit should be reduced from the tax payable, and thereafter, surcharge and education cess should be levied. This view was contrary to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Vacment India, which had ruled in favor of the assessee based on the same form of the Income Tax Return. 2. Legal Provisions and Arguments: The assessee's counsel, Mr. Khaitan, argued that the form of the Income Tax Return prescribed for the year 2008-09 (and up to 2011-12) supported the assessee's view. He cited the Allahabad High Court's judgment in CIT Vs Vacment India, which interpreted the form to mean that surcharge and cess should be computed after allowing MAT credit. Mr. Khaitan further contended that surcharge and cess are not part of income tax as per the Income Tax Act, and thus, should not be included in the computation of tax payable under Section 115JB. He supported his argument by citing Section 115JAA and its sub-sections, which provide for tax credit based on the difference between tax paid under Section 115JB and the tax payable on total income computed under normal provisions, excluding surcharge and cess. 3. Tribunal's Reasoning and Judgment: The Tribunal, supported by the Finance Act, 2008, held that surcharge and cess are integral parts of income tax, payable in addition to the tax calculated under Section 115JB. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tulsyan Nec Ltd., which clarified that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C should not be added to the tax amount before granting credit under Sections 115JA and 115JAA. The Tribunal concluded that surcharge and cess must be included in the computation of tax payable before granting MAT credit. 4. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeal: The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that surcharge and cess are indeed part of income tax, as indicated by various provisions of the Finance Act, 2008. The Court emphasized that the form of the Income Tax Return cannot override the statutory provisions. The Court dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and holding that MAT credit should be adjusted after computing surcharge and cess on the tax payable. Final Judgment: The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, against the assessee, and dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
