Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central I v. M/S.chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.,Rani Seethai Hall, Iv Floor,603, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.637 and 638 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Central I, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai... Appellant -vs- M/s.Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.,Rani Seethai Hall, IV Floor,603, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006.PAN: .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961against the order dated 28.12.2017 on the file of the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1201/MDS/2017for the assessment year 2007-08, against the order of Both theappeals of the Revenue are directed against the common orderpassed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)-17 Chennaidated 20.02.17 and pertain to assessment year 2007-2008 and2012-13 against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, Chennai 600 034 dated 19/08/2016, 30/01/15,27/02/2013 PAN/GIR.NO. . This appeal, filed by the appellant/revenue under Section260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “the Act”), is directed against the order dated 28.12.2017passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai,in I.T.A.No.1201/MDS/2017 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2.The appeals were filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law:-“1.Whether the surcharge and education cesspaid by an assessee while paying minimumalternate tax under section 115JB of Income TaxAct, are to be included while allowing credit ofminimum alternate tax under section 115JAA ofIncome Tax Act? 2.Whether the ITAT is correct in law inplacing reliance on the Judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of CIT vs. K.Srinivasan (1971)reported in 83 ITR 346, for giving relief to theassessee, whereas the said interpretation to"tax" is applicable only for the assessment year1964-65 and not for subsequent assessment years? 3.Whether the ITAT is correct in importingthe definition of "tax" as interpreted by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.K.Srinivasan (1971) reported in 83 ITR 346,whereas the Section 115JA did not defined "tax"to include surcharge and educational cess, asdefined in Section 115JB of the Act?" 3.The above Substantial Questions of law framed forconsidered was considered by us in the case of PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Scope International Pvt. Ltd.in TCA.No.369 of 2019 dated 19.06.2019 and the questions wereanswered against the revenue. The operative portion of thejudgment reads as follows: "10.The Revenue is before us contending thatsurcharge and cess should not be included and thatthe decision in the case of K.Srinivasan would notbe applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, theargument advanced before us is that both the CIT(A)as well as the Tribunal ought not to have followedthe decision in the case of K.Srinivasan, which wasrendered in the context of Section 2 of the Actwhereas Section 11JAA of the Act was insertedsubsequently with retrospective effect from01.04.1997." 2/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Following the above said decision, the tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions of law are answeredagainst the revenue. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V)//True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarcseTo1.The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-17,Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax payer Unit -II, Chennai-101.+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate SR.NO. 74199+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.NO. 74500T.C.A.Nos.637 and 638 of 2018nr 01/10/2019 3/4