Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit 7(1), Mumbai vs Navin Fluorine International Ltd, ... on 9 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09)
ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10)
Navin Fluorine International Limited v. The Asstt. Commissioner of
2nd Floor, Sunteck Centre, Income Tax 7(1)
37-40 Subash Road, Aayakar Bhavan,
Vile Parle (East) M.K.Road
Mumbai - 400 057 Mumbai
PAN : AABCP 0464 B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10)
The Deputy. Commissioner of v. Navin Fluorine International
Income Tax 7(1) Limited
Room.No.622 2nd Floor, Sunteck Centre,
Aayakar Bhavan, 37-40 Subash Road,
M.K.Road, Church gate Vile Parle (East)
Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai - 400 057
PAN : AABCP 0464 B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Smt Arati Vissanji
Revenue by: Shri N.P. Singh
Date of Hearing: 16.05.2017
Date of Pronouncement: 09.08.2017
2
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09)
ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10)
ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10)
Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)
1. These appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10.
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09)
2. First we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09. At the outset the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that an additional ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal regarding income from sale of carbon credits as capital receipt and since the additional ground is being purely a legal ground the same may be admitted and adjudicated upon. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional ground is regarding the non-taxability of carbon credits sold by the assessee. In other words, it was contended that the income earned on sale of carbon credits is a capital receipt not exigible to tax. The Ld.AR further submits that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 13.09.2008 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 08.12.2010, the appeal was disposed off by the Ld.CIT(A) on 16.11.2011. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that there was a later development to this issue as the Hyderabad Bench for the first time in its order dated 12.11.2012 held that income on sale of carbon credits is capital receipt not exigible tax. Therefore, it is submitted that a 3 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
legal claim came to the notice of the assessee only at that point of time and immediately took steps for filing additional ground before this Tribunal which was filed on 31.12.2012. Therefore, the Ld.AR submits that since the additional ground is only a legal ground should be admitted and disposed off. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPV v. CIT [229 ITR 383].
3. The Ld.DR strongly objected for admission of additional ground stating that the claim was not made before the lower authorities and facts are not available on record. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (supra) the Ld. DR submits that when facts are not available on record additional ground could not be admitted. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA.No.1060/Mum/14 dated 05.04.2017.
4. In reply the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the basic fact of receipt of income by way of sale of carbon credits is recorded as export sales in the books of account and since the basic fact is already recorded in the books of accounts and reflected in P&L account and balance sheet it cannot be said that the basic facts are not available on record and therefore the additional ground should be entertained. 4
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
5. Coming to the merits of the case the Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of My Home Power Limited v. DCIT in ITA.No.1114/Hyd/09 dated 02.11.2012 reported in 81 DTR 173 submits that it was held by the Hyderabad Bench that income on account of sale of Carbon Credit is a capital receipt not exigible to tax. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that this decision is approved by the Hon'ble AP High Court reported as CIT v. My Home Power Ltd. [365 ITR 82].
6. We have heard the rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied upon. No doubt the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal ground as to whether receipt on account of sale of carbon credits is a capital receipt or is a revenue receipt exigible to tax or not but whether the basic facts on such claim are on record or not is the question. It is the contention of the assessee that the basic fact of receipt of sale of carbon credits is reflected as export sales and accounted for in the books of account as export sales. Therefore, it is submitted that basic facts on this issue are available on record and there should not be any elaborate investigations into the facts in respect of the claim made by the assessee. It is the submission that the sales were reflected in the P&L account and forming part of the accounts. Prima facie the submissions of the assessee appears to be correct for the reason that 5 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
the income from sale of carbon credits is part of export sales, therefore basic facts are available on record. At the same time this claim was not made before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A) as there was no occasion for the assessee to raise before them as this claim was made based only on the latest development of legal position subsequent to the passing of Assessment Order and the Appellate Order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). In the circumstances we are of the considered view that additional ground should be admitted and at the same time it has to be decided by the Assessing Officer afresh taking into the contentions of the assessee.
7. The case law relied upon by the Ld.DR in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) may not be applicable to the assessee's case on hand. The facts are that the Hon'ble High Court observed that the necessary evidence entitling the assessee to claim 80IA of the Act for the subject Assessment Year is not on record. It was also observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA is available only when Form 10CCB is filed duly certified by the auditors and this Form 10CCB required detailed information to be provided and then only can be subject of examination by Assessing Officer before extending the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that since these information is not there before the Assessing 6 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
Officer the assessee could not have claimed deduction u/s 80IA. Thus the Hon'ble High Court refused admission of additional ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. Therefore, the facts in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra) and the case before us are completely different and hence this decision has no application to the facts of assessee's case.
8. Thus we admit the additional ground and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration. The assessee is at liberty to put-forth all its submissions and contentions before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
9. Coming to the regular grounds of appeal of the assessee, the only issue is regarding disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of ₹ 48,16,000/- and suomoto disallowed ₹ 8,41,675/- towards expenditure incurred for earing such exempt income. However, the Assessing Officer is of the view that since no disallowance of interest is made the assessee was asked to justify why interest expenditure should not be disallowed u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Learned Counsel for the 7 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
assessee submits that the, assessee submitted that the expenses incurred for the year are directly in relation to its business activities as well as constitute fixed expenditure in nature and hence no expenditure can be allocated as attributable to tax free investments. Learned Counsel for the assessee however submits that ignoring the submissions of the assessee the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D at ₹ 1,79,73,000/- comprising of ₹ 1,41,55,000/- towards interest under Rule 8D2(ii) and expenditure of ₹ 38,18,000/- under Rule 8D2(iii) of the Act.
10. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that the own funds of the assessee far exceeds the investments. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that during this Assessment Year there is no change in investments and in fact the investments have come down during this year from ₹ 1743.23 laks to ₹ 1624.61 laks. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that capital and reserves have gone up during this Assessment Year from ₹ 18567.28 lakhs to ₹ 19238.65 laks and further the borrowed funds have come down from ₹ 9247.46 lakhs to ₹ 9175.44 laks. Therefore the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that since the assessee is having surplus own funds to cover up the entire investments which was in fact in this case was made in the preceding Assessment Years interest disallowance under Rule 8 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
8D2(ii) will not stand in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v.HDFC [366 ITR 505].
11. Coming to the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) i.e. the administrative expenses, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has sumoto disallowed ₹ 8,41,675/- and the Assessing Officer without examining the correctness of the expenditure disallowed by the assessee with reference to the accounts and without there being any dissatisfaction on the amount disallowed by the assessee, Assessing Officer mechanically invoked Rule 8D2(iii) and disallowed ₹ 38 Laks as administrative expenses. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that in the absence of any dissatisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer and following the order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier Assessment Year 2% of dividend income may be disallowed towards administrative expenses. Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities.
12. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. It is abundantly clear from the submission of the assessee and the statistics provided before us that the investments have come down during this Assessment Year, capital and reserves are much more than the investment and the borrowals have also come down. In the 9 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
circumstances, there should not be any disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) towards interest as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. HDFC (Supra). Respectfully following the said decision we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii).
13. Coming to the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) we find that the assessee sumoto disallowed ₹ 8,41,675/- and the Assessing Officer has not recorded any dissatisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee with reference to the books of accounts. There is no any finding of the Assessing Officer as to why the disallowance made by the assessee is not correct referring to books of account. In the circumstances, we hold that since there is no dissatisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer he should not have invoked Rule 8D2(iii) for further disallowance, thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made under Rule 8D2(iii) and accept the sumoto disallowance already made by the assessee at ₹ 8,41,675/- as expenditure attributable for earing the dividend income of ₹ 48,16,000/- is reasonable. We reject the request of the assessee to restrict the disallowance to 2% of exempt income.
14. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
10
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10)
15. Now coming to the appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10, additional ground was raised by the assessee in respect of taxability of carbon credits. This additional ground is similar to the additional ground raised by assessee in Assessment Year 2008-09. For the reasons explained therein we admit this additional ground and restore to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
16. Coming to the regular grounds of appeal the first issue is regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. During this Assessment Year assessee received exempt income of ₹ 28,89,600/- and there is no sumoto disallowance by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 1,69,80,000/- u/s 14A, being interest under Rule 8D2(ii) at ₹ 131.91 laks and 0.5% of average investment at 37.89 laks under Rule. 8D2(iii). On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the disallowance.
17. Learned Counsel for the assessee, in so far as the disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) is concerned, submits that the position is same in respect of own funds and borrowed funds and investments in this year also as compared to the last year. The Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to Page 2 of the Paper Book submits that there is no change in 11 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
investments, the investments were all made in earlier years and there is increase in own funds from 19238.65 laks to 22901.50 laks, borrowals have come down from ₹ 9175.44 laks to 5264.27 laks. Therefore, it is submitted that no disallowance is warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in respect of interest is concerned.
18. On hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that there should not be any disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) in respect of interest as the own funds far exceeds investments and there is substantial reduction in borrowals during this Assessment Year. Hence we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the interest disallowance made under Rule 8D2(ii) r.w. section 14A of the Act.
19. Coming to the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii), Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer did not exclude convertible redeemable preference shares on which no dividend income has been earned by the assessee up to 31.03.2014 as the terms of the issue specify that no dividend should be declared up to 31.03.2014. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that since these investments made inconvertible redeemable preference shares and not capable of earning the dividend income up to 31.03.2014, have to be excluded for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) in calculating the average 12 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
investments. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that in any case the disallowance cannot exceed dividend income earned by the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd v. v.CIT [372 ITR 694]. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
20. On hearing both sides we are of the view that the investments not yielded dividend income should be excluded from the purview of computation of average investments and this is the position as held by the Special Bench of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Verit Investments Private Limited [82 taxman.com 415]. The Special Bench held that only those investments which yielded exempt income during year should be considered for computing average value of investments under Rule 8D2(iii). Thus following Special Bench decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) accordingly. However, in any case the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed exempt income. In this case the exempt income reported by the assessee is ₹. 28,89,600/-, therefore the disallowance should not exceed this amount.
21. The next issue in the appeal of the assessee is regarding the disallowance made u/s 41(1) in respect of trade creditors. The Assessing 13 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
Officer while completing assessment disallowed ₹ 37,57,302/- observing that creditors are outstanding for more than three years. The Assessing Officer observed that from the nature of business of assessee and the commercial terms of the payment in this industry, credit period can never be more than three years. According to Assessing Officer all these outstanding balances are no longer payable and they should be brought to tax u/s.41(1) of the Act. It is the observation of the Assessing Officer that various unmoved creditors are outstanding for more than three years but assessee has made no effort to right back such liabilities in the books. Therefore, he treated the outstanding creditors as cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act, in the absence of confirmations provided by the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the disallowance.
22. The Learned Counsel for the assessee before us submits that the liability to discharge the creditors has not ceased during the current Assessment Year, therefore there is no cessation of liability and therefore there is no justification at all in bringing to tax the outstanding balances of creditors by the lower authorities. It is further submitted that in-fact the assessee wrote back these creditors in the books of account in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and offered as income wherever the amounts are not required to be paid. The Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions in support of her contentions: - 14
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
1. CIT v. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd (Bombay High Court) (2012) 345 ITR 64
2. Principal CIT v. Matruprasad C. pandey (Gujarat High Court) (2015) 377 ITR.
23. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
24. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. Almost on identical facts in the case of CIT v. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd (supra) the Bombay High Court held that on the brokerage liability outstanding and returned back to P&L account and taxes paid in subsequent Assessment Years, there is no remission or cessation of liability in the earlier Assessment Years. The facts in this case are that the assessee has shown outstanding brokerage liability for the Assessment Year 1994-95 to 1997-98 at 62.87 laks, but shown as outstanding at ₹.7.74 laks in the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The assessee in the course of Assessment Proceedings for the Assessment Year 2002-03 submitted that for the Assessment Year 2004-05 a sum of ₹ .62.87 laks was returned back into profit and loss account and paid the tax. However, the Assessing Officer held that the liability exists for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and brought to the tax such amount in the Assessment Year 2002-03 itself. In these circumstances, the High Court held that there is no cessation of liability in the Assessment Year 2002-
03. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision we hold that there 15 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
is no cessation of liability of the trade creditors in this Assessment Year and the assessee has already returned back these trade creditors on 31.03.2012 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act this Assessment Year.
25. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10)
26. Coming to the Revenue appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The only issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law inholding that the credit for MAT is required to be allowed before levy of surcharge.
27. The Ld.DR submits that the Ld.CIT(A) ignoring the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Classic Shares & Stock Broking Service Ltd v. ACIT in ITA.No.5869/Mum/2007 decided that MAT credit is required to be given before levying of surcharge. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
28. We find that an identical issue come up before the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. M/s Godrej Oil Palm Ltd. in 16 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
ITA 5098/Mum/13 dated 14.01.2015, wherein the Coordinate Bench following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Vacment India [349 ITR 304] held that MAT credit should be allowed before levy of surcharge. While holding so it is observed as under: -
"2. We have heard the Ld. DR as well as Ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset we note that an identical issue has been considered and by this Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Limited Vs. ACIT in ITA no. 6682/Mum/2011 vide order dated 9-01-2015 in para 4 and 5 as under:-
"4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that the authorities below held that the MAT credit is allowable against the tax liability inclusive of surcharge and cess and not the tax payable before the surcharge and cess. The assessee has relied upon the Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vacment India (349 ITR 304) wherein the Hon'ble High Court while considering the question of surcharge and education cess on tax payable has been calculated before allowing the credit of MAT u/s 115JAA held in para 5 to 7 as under:-
5. The only question which is raised pertains to the computation of tax in accordance with the modalities which are prescribed in the relevant form, ITR-6. IN so far as is material, the relevant entries in the form (Part B-TTI) are as follows:
3. Gross tax payable (enter higher of 2c and 1)
4. Credit under section 115JAA of tax paid in earlier years (if 2c is more than 1) (7 of schedule MATC)
5. Tax payable after credit under section 115JAA [3-4]
6. surcharge on 5 7 Education cess, including secondary and higher education cess on (5+6)
8. Gross tax liability (5+6+7) 6 The aforesaid entries leave no manner of ambiguity in regard to the method of computation of tax liability. Entry 3 requires computation of the gross tax payable. Under entry 4, credit is required to be given under section 115JAA of the Act of the tax paid in earlier years. Entry 5 requires a computation of the tax payable 17 ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
after credit under section 115JAA of the Act. The matter is placed beyond doubt by the parenthesis, which indicates that tax payable under entry 5 is to be 'arrived at by deducting the credit under section 115JAA of the Act (under entry 3) from the gross tax payable (under entry 4). The surcharge 'is computed on the amount reflected in entry 5.
7 The Tribunal has noted that from the next assessment year, the assessment year 2012-13, the positiori was materially altered but, in the present case, since the dispute related to the assessment year 2011-12, the method of computation, as directed by the Commissioner {Appeals) was plainly in accordance with the methodology as provided in ITR-6. 'The Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has, hence, not committed any error. The appeal-will not give rise' to any substantial question of law and is, accordingly, dismissed."
8. Thus it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court has taken into account the order of entries in the form ITR-6 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in the said case and held that as per form ITR-6, the MAT credit has to be given against the gross tax payable exclusive of surcharge /cess and only after the MAT credit tax liability, the surcharge and cess has to be calculated for the purpose of working out the grand tax liability. We also find merit and substance in the alternative contention of the assessee that if the MAT credit is taken into account without including the surcharge and education cess then the surcharge and education cess on the tax liability has to be calculated only after allowing the MAT credit. Alternatively, the amount of MAT credit should also include surcharge and education cess for the purpose of allowing the credit against the tax liability inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Therefore, the MAT as well as normal tax before allowing the MAT credit has to be taken on parity either exclusion of surcharge and education cess or inclusive of surcharge and education cess or inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Accordingly we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the MAT credit against the tax liability payable before surcharge and education cess or alternatively the amount of MAT credit should also be inclusive of surcharge and education cess and then allow the credit against the tax payable inclusive of surcharge and education cess.
3. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of CIT(A) qua this issue." 18
ITA.NO.1192/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2008-09) ITA NO.7797/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) ITA NO.690/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) Navin Fluorine International Ltd.
29. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue.
30. In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 09th August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJENDRA) (C.N.PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai / Dated 09/08/2017
VSSGB, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
//True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mum