Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai Appellant v. M/S Aban Llyod Chiles Offshore Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Appeal)Nos.1494 and 1495 of 2007 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai Appellantv.M/s Aban Llyod Chiles Offshore Ltd96, Panthoen Road, EgmoreChennaiRespondent (TC 1494/07)Coramandel Eng. Co. Ltd43,Moore St., ChennaiRespondent (TC 1495/07) Tax Case Appeals filed under section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.02.2006 passed in ITA Nos.278,279/Mds/2003 and appeal against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)III, Chennai - 34 dt.14.11.02 in ITANo.98/2002-03/A.III and dt.11.01.2003 in I.T.A.No.Tr.319/2001-02/A.III respectively and appeal against the order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I (1), Chennai - 34dt.14.03.02 in AAACA30/2H and order of the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Special Range I, Chennai - 34 dt.27.3.2001 in 27/Crespectively. (Judgment of the Court was delivered byK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 03.02.2006passed in ITA Nos.278, 279/Mds/2003. The following questions oflaw have been formulated in respect of T.C.No.1494/07:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances ofhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off against from the taxpayable before setting off the tax deducted atsource and advance tax paid? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the MAT Credit can be given priority ofset off against tax payable, contrary to thescheme of schedule G of Form 1? 3. Whether the interest u/s 234B and 234Chad to be calculated after giving the MAT creditagainst the tax payable on the basis of normalcomputation?" The following questions of law have been formulated in respect ofT.C.No.1495/07:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in proceedingwith the case as if the assessing officer hadwrongly given credit of MAT when the assessee hadbrought forward the MAT credit? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatMAT credit is to be set off against from the taxpayable before setting off the tax deducted atsource and advance tax paid? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the MAT Credit can be given priority ofset off against tax payable, contrary to thescheme of schedule G of Form 1? 4. Whether the interest u/s 234B and 234Chad to be calculated after giving the MAT creditagainst the tax payable on the basis of normalcomputation?" 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for theappellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. The very same issues have been considered by the DivisionBench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on09.04.2009. In respect of the question of law relating tointerest, the Division Bench has answered in favour of the assesseeand against the revenue by observing as follows by concurring withCIT vs. Jindal Experts Ltd., (2009) 222 CTR 8 (Delhi):- "7.In respect of the first question of law, thearguments advanced by the counsel on either sideare the same as the one advanced before the DelhiHigh Court cited supra. The Delhi High Court hashttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/considered the relevant provisions and dealt with 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for theappellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. The very same issues have been considered by the DivisionBench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on09.04.2009. In respect of the question of law relating tointerest, the Division Bench has answered in favour of the assesseeand against the revenue by observing as follows by concurring withCIT vs. Jindal Experts Ltd., (2009) 222 CTR 8 (Delhi):- "7.In respect of the first question of law, thearguments advanced by the counsel on either sideare the same as the one advanced before the DelhiHigh Court cited supra. The Delhi High Court hashttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/considered the relevant provisions and dealt with the matter in detail and held that the creditunder Section 115JAA should be given effect tobefore charging of interest under Section 234A,234B and 234C of the Act. We are in agreementwith the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court.The learned counsel appearing for the revenue hasnot produced any materials or given compellingreasons to take a contrary view with that of theDelhi High Court. In such circumstances, weanswer the first question in favour of theassessee and against the revenue. 4. In respect of the other questions of law, the DivisionBench has observed as follows:-"18. In the present case, the intention of thelegislature is to give tax credit to tax and not tothe tax and interest. Once the intention is clear,the revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say thatthe MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be givenonly after tax and interest. Further we haveanswered the first question of law in favour of theassessee i.e. the MAT credit under Section 115JAAshould be given effect to before charging theinterest under Section 234B and 234C. Rule 12(1)(a)and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of theAct. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priorityof adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit underSection 115JAA which is contrary to the provisionsof the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is inaccordance with law and we do not find any error orillegality in the order of the Tribunal so as towarrant interference. Accordingly, we answer thequestions 2 and 3 also in favour of the assessee andas against the Revenue. Thus all the questions of law have been answered against therevenue in favour of the assessee. 5. The questions of law in these cases also are identical asthe one considered by the Division Bench. Following the DivisionBench Judgment cited supra, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rg To 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRARINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALRAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR,CHENNAI - 18 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS)III, CHENNAI - 34 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOMPANY CIRCLE I(1)CHENNAI - 34 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIOENROF INCOME TAXSPECIAL RANGE I,CHENNAI - 34 2 ccs To M/s.Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate, SR.16230 & 16229 T.C.(A)Nos.1494 and 1495 of 2007 KJI(CO)SRA(4/5/2009)