9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucation cess are part of income tax. These High Court decisions were followed by series of the Tribunal decisions across the country and hence, this issue is no longer res integra. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that for the purpose of MAT credit to be carried forward to subsequent years, tax portion should include surcharge and education cess. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - ITA No.5029/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year :2011-12) - - - Dated:- 24-11-2021 - SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by: Shri Sanjiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucation cess. Against this tax payable, the assessee had indeed paid advance tax of ₹ 28,39,53,100/- which was given due credit in the said intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act and ultimately the net refund of ₹ 4,176/- was determined by CPC, Bangalore while computing the tax payable u/s.115JB of the Act. Since, no income was computed u/s.115JB of the Act by the ld. AO in the assessment order framed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 29/01/2014, the said assessment was subjected to suomoto rectification by the ld. AO and accordingly order u/s.154 of the Act was passed by the ld. AO on 12/03/2018 wherein he identified the fact that MAT credit carried forward by the assessee was ₹ 27,89,28,216/- which is inclusive of surcharge of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR with regard to placing reliance on the ITR-6 form was not done by the ld. CIT(A) and that the reliance placed on the relevant columns of ITR-6 was done by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case referred to supra which had been relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, we find that the decision relied upon by the ld. DR on the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case referred to supra is actually completely in favour of the assessee. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 395 ITR 291 and the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vacment India reported in 369 ITR 304 where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
