9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the MAT credit as per the provisions of Section 115JAA - Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the records and re-compute the tax liability of the Appellant after granting the set off of MAT credit as available to the Appellant in terms of Section 115JB of the Act while passing order giving effect to the decision in the present appeal. - ITA No. 2114/MUM/2022 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2023 - SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah For the Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha ORDER Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 27.06.2022, passed by the Ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciate with reference to the impugned assessment order that the tax under the normal provisions of Rs.3,03,21,333/- was more compared to the tax, including surcharge and education Cess, of Rs.3,03,11,424/- on the Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Act and hence, Your Appellant was entitled to the set-off of brought forward MAT Credit of Rs.30,07,048/- u/s. 115JAA of the Act. (5) On the facts and circumstances Your Appellant prays that the set-off of brought-forward MAT credit of Rs.30,07,048/- may be allowed under the provisions of section 115JAA of the Act. (II) DISALLOWANCE OF PF AND ESIC PAYMENTS OF RS.1,51,079/- (1) On the facts and circumstances and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of PF ESI co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,764/-, the Assessing Officer computed tax liability under Section 115JB of the Act of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2021. Before CIT(A) it was contended by the Appellant that the Appellant was entitled to deduction of INR 1,51,079/- being employees contribution to ESIC/PF in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghadge Patil Transport Ltd. : 368 ITR 749. It was also contended by the Appellant that the Appellant was entitled to claim credit in respect of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) of INR 30,07,048/- brought forward to the relevant previous year. Though the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, the aforesaid cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of INR 9,95,133/-, the gross tax liability under normal provisions stood at INR 3,41,66,240/-. However, credit under Section 115JAA of tax paid in earlier years was reflected as Nil. The contention of the Appellant is that the MAT credit of INR 30,07,048/- was available, however, the set off of the same has not been allowed by the Assessing Officer. Perusal of Assessment Order shows that the Assessing Officer has concluded that tax under MAT provisions was higher than tax under normal provisions. The aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the material on record. According to Section 115JB of the Act income tax payable is to be compared with the specified percentage of Book Profits computed under Section 115JB of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
