9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 17.07.2009 passed in ITA No.0013/Mds/2009. For appellant: Mr.K.Subramaniam JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ''B' Bench, Chennai, dated 17.07.2009 passed in ITA No.0013/Mds/2009, relating to the assessment year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds was of the view that credit of MAT was wrongly given in the same assessment year and therefore issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed on 10.09.2007 under Section 143(3) by holding that the credits for MAT was wrongly given and on that score added a sum of Rs.81,84,000/-. (ii) The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f by this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited reported in 314 ITR 231, wherein the first question of law raised was "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the carry forward MAT credit available to the assessee was to be adjusted fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als or given compelling reasons to take a contrary view with that of the Delhi High Court. In such circumstances, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. In respect of the 2nd question of law, the Division Bench has held that the intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest. Once the intention is clear, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
