Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Wms Gaming Solutions India Pvt. Ltd..,, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण पुणे यायपीठ "बी
बी"
बी पुणे म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
ी डी.
डी. क णाकरा राव , लेखा सद य
एवं ी िवकास अव थी,
अव थी याियक सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 153/PUN/2015
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year 2012-13
WMS Gaming Solutions India .......... अपीलाथ /
Private Limited, Appellant
Commerce Zone, Building No.1,
Level 4 & 5, Office No.402 & 501,
Samrat Ashok Path,
Off Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune - 411 006
PAN : AAACW9659R
बनाम v/s
ACIT, CPC, Bangalore
(Jurisdictional Assessing Officer), .......... यथ /
Ward-12(4), Parptikar Sadan Respondent
Annex. Building, Karve Road,
Pune 411004
Assessee by : Shri Pramod N. Jadhav
Revenue by : Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
सुनवाई क तारीख / घोषणा क तारीख /
Date of Hearing :09.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 18.08.2017
आदेश / ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This appeal is filed by the Assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, dated 01-10-2014 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The issue raised in the grounds of the assessee relates to grant of MAT credit utilization including the Surcharge and Educational Cess computed under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2ITA No.153/PUN/2015
WMS Gaming Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,
3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing Software Solution. It filed its return of income on 29-11- 2012 disclosing taxable income of Rs.2,90,05,050/- and claiming a refund of Rs.7,32,940/-. Assessee claimed MAT credit including Surcharge and Educational Cess. AO did not allow the same.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee narrating the facts of the case submitted that in the assessment proceedings, the AO did not give MAT credit towards Surcharge and Educational Cess computed under the normal provisions of the Act. CIT(A) confirmed the same relying on the order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT reported in 25 Taxmann.com 1. The contents of Para No.3.2.3 are relevant. However, relying on the order of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dar Al-Handasah Consultants Vs. ACIT in ITA No.151/PUN/2015 order dated 30-11-2016, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Pune Bench in the above case has an occasion to decide an identical issue to the present case under consideration, vide Ground No.3 of the said appeal.
5. We heard both the sides. We have also gone through the order of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dar Al-Handasah Consultants which was relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Tribunal vide discussion given in Para Nos. 10 to 12 has decided an identical issue and directed the AO to grant MAT credit including Surcharge and Educational Cess. For the sake of completeness, the contents of relevant are extracted as under :
"10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The short issue which arises before us is in relation to computation of taxes as per normal provisions of the Act and the allowance of MAT credit. The assessee was found to be eligible for payment of taxes under normal provisions of the Act since the taxes as per MAT provisions were on lower side. The assessee claimed that MAT credit of Rs.1,48,62,655/- should be allowed to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of 3 ITA No.153/PUN/2015 WMS Gaming Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., the Act allowed MAT credit at Nil and thereafter under section 154 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,37,42,631/- i.e. without Surcharge and Education Cess. The CIT(A) was of the view that MAT payable under section 115JAA of the Act was only income tax and it does not include Surcharge or Education Cess. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). Similar issue of allowance of tax credit for tax paid on deemed income i.e. computation of eligible MAT credit arose before the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in Virtusa (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 157 ITD 1160 (Hyd). The Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal held that the tax liabilities for normal provisions as well as MAT to be calculated with Surcharge and Education Cess and the assessee was entitled to total MAT credit adjustments i.e. against taxes and Surcharge and Cess. In this regard, reference was made to sub- section (5) to section 115JAA of the Act i.e. for setting o ff in respect of brought forward tax credit and it was held that the term used 'tax' included surcharge and it was held as under:-
"9.6 The tax liabilities for normal provisions as well as MAT are calculated with surcharge and cess. The MAT credit in row "7" are calculated automatically using the prescribed algorithm, this is nothing but balancing figure i.e., the difference between tax liability as per normal provisions and MAT provisions. Both the above tax liabilities are calculated with surcharge and cess. These are the standard format, which are expected to be followed by all the assessees and also important to note that the above format of ITR 6 was amended w.e.f. AY 2012 -13 by CBDT. Moreover, this is more relevant for the department also. These formats are regulated by CBDT. Assessing Officer cannot overlook these formats and (interpret it in his own method of calculating tax credit while making assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act.) proceed to calculate the MAT credit to compute assessment u/s 143(1) applying different methods when the proper and correct method as proposed by CBDT in ITR-6. The Assessing Officer is expected to follow the ITR-6 format to complete the assessment u/s 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act."
11. The Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal also referred to the facts and issue decided in Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and held as under:-
"9.5 Let us also analyse the case law of Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. which was applied by CIT(A), the Delhi ITAT opined that section 115JAA applied only to income tax, not of income tax as increased by surcharge and education cess. We are of the view that the Apex court decision in the case of K. Srinivasan (supra) may not have been brought to the knowledge of the ITAT, Delhi. Moreover, the explanation 2 of section 115JB is applicable to calculate tax liability u/s 115JB and the same explanation should also be applied for giving credit u/s 115JAA. The tax liabilities calculated u/s 115JB by applying the explanation 2, the tax liability so computed are remitted by the assessee and then the same was carried forward for future MAT credit. In our view, while calculating the MAT credit u/s 115JAA, the same explanation '2' in section 115JB must be applied.
9.6 The earlier judgments in the cases of Universal Medicare, Valmet India and Wyeth Limited are decided relying on the ITR - 6 as applicable in those AYs. Similarly, we also apply the ITR 6 format as applicable to AY 2012 -13 as stated above. Assessee has relied on the ITR - 6 format to arrive at the total liability as well as the MAT credit calculations and paid tax accordingly. In our view, the assessee had followed the procedure properly and the Assessing Officer had made the calculations applying his own interpretation or relied on the programme, we are not sure whether it is programme hitch or the interpretation of Assessing Officer was not in line 4 ITA No.153/PUN/2015 WMS Gaming Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., with the calculations proposed in ITR-6. Therefore, we delete the addition made."
12. The issue arising in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal and applying the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to MAT credit utilization of Rs.1.48 crores i.e. credit including surcharge and education cess. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the refund in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed."
6. From the above, it is evident that the issue raised by the assessee in the present case is exactly identical to the one already adjudicated by the Tribunal in the case of Dar Al-Handasah Consultants (supra). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
याियक सद य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; दनांक Dated : 18th August, 2017.
सतीश
आदेश क ितिलिप अ िे षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)-I, Pune
4. The CIT-I, Pune
5. िवभागीय %ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "B Bench"
Pune;
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स
स यािपत ित //True Copy//
//True Copy// Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune