9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that so, we have noted the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee on merit also, and we find that rectification application filed by the assessee is to the effect that the assessee be allowed benefit of MAT credit as per section 115JAA(5) of the Act by including surcharge and cess in the tax credit so calculated. Precisely, this is the only issue on which the assessee has sought rectification of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee. In a series of the decisions, the Hon ble High Courts and the ITAT have held that the tax credit allowable under section 115JAA of the Act is including surcharge and cess components of tax thereon. Denial of tax credit u/s 115JAA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,88,578/-only as against the actual claim of the appellant at Rs.5,03,235/- as per the return of income filed. The Action of AO in not allowing the set-off of accumulated tax credit u/s.115JAA of the Act to the extent of Rs.14,657/- is totally unjustified and uncalled for. Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter, or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case, as pointed out by the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing ceramic tiles. It had filed return of income for the impugned year under section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs.40,47,780/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ld.counsel for the assessee that on the last date of hearing i.e. 26.3.2019, the assessee did file written submissions before the ld.CIT(A),copy of which was also placed before us at page no.1 to 9 and without considering the same, the ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order. 5. On the meritsof the case, raised in ground no.3 before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the difference of MAT credit not allowed to the assessee,t o the extent of Rs.14,657/-,the same related to surcharge and cess components of the MAT taxes paid in earlier years. He pointed out that the AO had computed the MAT credit allowable to the assessee as per provision of section 115JAA(5) of the Act only considering the normal tax components and ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounted to Rs.75,62,847/- and taxeson the same worked out at 15% of the book profits at Rs.11,34,427/- plus education cess Rs.22,689/-, and secondary higher education cess of Rs.11,344/-, thus total tax of Rs.11,68,460/-. Accordingly surplus of tax paid under 115JB as opposed to that payable under normal provision, amounting to Rs.10,40,026/- ,was carried forward for set off in subsequent years as MAT credit as per the provisions of section 115JAA(5) of the Act . B. He thereafter contended that in the computation of income for the impugned year i.e.Asst.Year 2012-13, the tax payable as per normal provision and that under MAT was worked out as under: Under normal provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surcharge and cess. For the said purpose he drew our attention to the chart pointing out the same as under: Particulars Ref As per Return of Income As per Order u/s.154 Total income 40,47,780 40,47,780 Tax under normal provision @ 30% 12,14,334 12,14,335 Add: Education Cess 3% +36,430 A 12,50,764 12,14,334 Book Profit u/s.115JB of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of M/s.Virtusa (India) P.Ltd.(supra) the assessee be allowed benefit of surcharge and cess components of the taxes credit to be adjusted against taxes payable for the year. The ld.DR however supported the order of the AO. 8. We have heard rival contentions. We have also gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities. We have noted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal on the ground that there was no representation made by the assessee before him. The ld.counsel for the assessee has pointed out that on the last date of hearing, he did file written submissions to the ld.CIT(A). Be that so, we have noted the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee on merit also, and we find that re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
