9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , took note of the legislative history of the Finance Act as also the practice to indicate that the term income tax as employed in Section 2 of the Finance Act, which includes surcharge as also the special and the additional surcharge whenever provided which are also surcharges within the meaning of Article 271 of The Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the distinction made by the High Court in the case and held that the distinction made by the High Court that the surcharges are levied only under the Finance Act and income tax under the Act may not hold good. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term 'surcharge' to mean as the charge in addition to or subject to an additional or extra charge. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) in ITA No.200/Chny/2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in directing the inclusion of surcharge and cess in MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act ? And ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Srinivas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be including India. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order on 03.10.2012, based on which, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 31.3.2013. As against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). In this appeal, we are concerned only about the issue relating to MAT credit not being given on surcharge and cess. 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the tax liability discharged during the assessment year 2009-10 was based on Section 115JB of the Act, as the tax calculated under the MAT provisions was higher than the tax calculated as per normal provisions of income tax and that this resulted in a MAT credit to the extent the tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it was contended before the Tribunal that the CIT(A) had no power to direct the Assessing Officer to verify. The Tribunal took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Srinivasan and held that in exercise of its power, it is entitled to direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assesse and thereafter allow the claim with regard to MAT credit. Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). 10. The Revenue is before us contending that surcharge and cess should not be included and that the decision in the case of K.Srinivasan would not be applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the argument advanced before us is that both the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union calculated in either case in the manner provided therein. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.Srinivasan, took note of the legislative history of the Finance Act as also the practice to indicate that the term income tax as employed in Section 2 of the Finance Act, which includes surcharge as also the special and the additional surcharge whenever provided which are also surcharges within the meaning of Article 271 of The Constitution. It was pointed out that the word 'surcharge' has been used to either increase the rates of income tax and super tax or to increase these taxes. It was also pointed out that according to Article 271, notwithstanding any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Senior Standing Counsel, yet, on a perusal of the said circular, it is evidently clear that consistently, the understanding of the Board was that tax includes applicable surcharge and cess. 16. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Revenue has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. As pointed out earlier, in the assessee's own case, for the assessment year 2012-13, relief has been granted to the assessee and there is nothing on record to show that the said order is either reversed or reopened. Hence, the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the Revenue. 17. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. No costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
