IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21.04.2009 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 Tax Chennai Appellant v. M/s Aban Llyod Chiles Offshore Ltd 96, Panthoen Road, Egmore Chennai Respondent (TC 1494/07) Coramandel Eng. Co. Ltd 43,Moore St., Chennai Respondent (TC 1495/07) Tax Case Appeals filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 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 of Income Tax (Appeals)III, Chennai - 34 dt.14.11.02 in ITA No.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 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I (1), Chennai - 34 dt.14.03.02 in AAACA30/2H and order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range I, Chennai - 34 dt.27.3.2001 in 27/C respectively. For appellant : Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman For Respondent: Mr.Venkat Narayanan (TC 1494/07) Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar (TC 1495/07) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) The revenue on appeal 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. The following questions of law have been formulated in respect of T.C.No.1494/07:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MAT credit is to be set off against from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source and advance tax paid? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the MAT Credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of schedule G of Form 1? 3. Whether the interest u/s 234B and 234C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation?" The following questions of law have been formulated in respect of T.C.No.1495/07:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in proceeding with the case as if the assessing officer had wrongly given credit of MAT when the assessee had brought forward the MAT credit? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off against from the tax payable before setting off the tax deducted at source and advance tax paid? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the MAT Credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of schedule G of Form 1? 4. Whether the interest u/s 234B and 234C had to be calculated after giving the MAT credit against the tax payable on the basis of normal computation?" 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. The very same issues have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009. In respect of the question of law relating to interest, the Division Bench has answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by observing as follows by concurring with CIT vs. Jindal Experts Ltd., (2009) 222 CTR 8 (Delhi):- "7.In respect of the first question of law, the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side are the same as the one advanced before the Delhi High Court cited supra. The Delhi High Court has considered the relevant provisions and dealt with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the matter in detail and held that the credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the Delhi High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue has not produced any materials or given compelling reasons to take a contrary view with that of the Delhi High Court. In such circumstances, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. In respect of the other questions of law, the Division Bench has observed as follows:- "18. In the present case, the intention of the legislature is to give tax credit to tax and not to the tax and interest. Once the intention is clear, the revenue cannot rely on the Form-I to say that the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given only after tax and interest. Further we have answered the first question of law in favour of the assessee i.e. the MAT credit under Section 115JAA should be given effect to before charging the interest under Section 234B and 234C. Rule 12(1)(a) and Form-I cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. Form-I cannot lay down the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance Tax, MAT credit under Section 115JAA which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, we answer the questions 2 and 3 also in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. Thus all the questions of law have been answered against the revenue in favour of the assessee. 5. The questions of law in these cases also are identical as the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench Judgment cited supra, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rg To 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI - 18 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)III, CHENNAI - 34 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI - 34 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL 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) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/