P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.@mdashIn this batch of cases, the questions raised for consideration are one and the same. Therefore, they are taken up
together and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The questions of law raised for consideration are as follows:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the carry forward MAT credit
available to the assessee was to be adjusted first before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that Rule 12(1)(a) which lays down
that every company has to furnish a return of income in Form No. 1 and Schedule G to the said form clearly lays down the manner of computation
of the total income and also the order in which TDS, Advance Tax and Tax credit u/s 115JAA should be given effect to, is against the intention of
the legislation and hence not applicable?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering the fact that Form 1 had
been substituted by the Income Tax (19th amendment) Rules 2001 with effect from 17.08.2001 and as such interest chargeable u/s 234B or 234C
should be first deducted and thereafter tax credit u/s 115JAA should be given?
3. In order to appreciate the bone of contention, it would be suffice to state the facts relevant to one of the assessee''s viz., M/s Chemplast Sanmar
Limited, Chennai case in T.C.(A) No. 887 of 2004, which are as follows:
The assessee is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of PVC Resins, Caustic Soda, Chioromethane, refringerant Gases, Promotion of
new-ventures, undertakings companies and operation of ships etc. The relevant assessment year is 2002-2003 and the corresponding accounting
year ended on 31.03.2002. The asessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 admitting a taxable income of Rs. 32,90,54,720/- and the tax
payable thereon was determined at Rs. 11,76,77,896/- including the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The assessing officer processed the
return u/s 143(1) by intimation dated 21.02.2003 accepting the income returned. While computing the tax, the assessing officer has not adjusted
the carry forward MAT credit available to the assessee before charging interest u/s 234B of Rs. 1,17,64,830/- and u/s 234C of Rs. 56,31,754/-
and consequently raised a tax demand of Rs. 1,64,86,519/- and further, the assessing officer had not given credit for TDS of Rs. 4,49,527/-.
Aggrieved by that order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that the provision of
Section 115JAA had to be applied first as it is a tax credit or prepaid taxes with the Government available to the assessee for set off, before
applying the provisions of Section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal, held as follows:
The appellant''s submissions have been considered. The order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance tax and tax credit u/s 115JAA have not
been spelt out in the Act. One has to take recourse to the Income Tax Rules 1962, for this purpose. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules 1962
lays down that in the case of a company, the return of income required to be furnished shall be in Form No. 1. Schedule G to Form No. 1 lays
down the manner of computing the total tax payable by the assessee. It also gives the order in which TDS, Advance Tax and tax credit u/s
115JAA, shall be given effect to. Form No. 1 has been substituted by Income Tax (19th Amendment) Rules 2001 with effect from 17.8.2001.
Therefore, there is no ambiguity with effect from 17.8.2001 that interest u/s 234B or 234C shall be first deducted and thereafter tax credit u/s
115JAA shall be given.
Aggrieved by that order, the assessee has filed further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and
directed the assessing officer to give set off of the MAT credit of Rs. 8,64,72,445/- first, before the charging of interest under Sections 234B and
234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by that order, the Department preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the carry forward MAT credit available
to the assessee was to be adjusted first before charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Further she contended that the Income Tax Rules
viz., Rule 12(1)(a) lays down that every company has to furnish a return of income in Form No. 1 and Schedule G of the said form clearly lays
down the manner of computation of the total income and also the order in which TDS advance tax and tax credit u/s 115JAA should be given
effect to. She also submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that form-I had been substituted by the Income Tax (19th Amendment) Rules 2001
with effect from 17.08.2001 and as such, there was no ambiguity from that date and the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C has to be first
deducted and thereafter, tax credit u/s 115JAA has to be given effect to. The said Rules and Form are mandatory and the same is binding on the
assessee. She further contended that these appeals are arising out of the assessment proceedings. In these batch of cases, the validity of Rules and
Form-I have not been challenged. The authorities working under the statute are bound by the Rules. She further contended that Section 234B
provides for charge of interest for defaults in payment of advance tax. The assessee is liable to pay advance tax u/s 208 of the Act. When the
assessee fails to pay such tax or advance tax paid by the assessee u/s 210 is less than 90% of the ""assessed tax"", the assessee shall be liable to pay
interest at the prescribed rate on the ""assessed tax"" or on the difference between the ""assessed tax"" and the advance tax paid. The ""assessed tax"" is
defined in Explanation 1 after Section 234B(1) that the tax determined u/s 143(1) or upon a regular assessment as reduced by the Tax deducted at
source (TDS). Prior to the amendment, the explanation did not have any reference to MAT credit. In order to arrive at the figure of ""assessed tax"",
the only permissible deduction from the tax computed on total income as determined u/s 143(1) or upon a regular assessment is only the amount of
tax deducted at source. As per Section 234C, the interest payable under the provision is to be computed with reference to ""tax due on returned
income"". The said expression defined in Explanation after Section 234C(1) would mean the tax chargeable on the total income declared in the
return of income furnished by the assessee for the assessment year commencing on the first day of April immediately following the financial year in
which the advance tax is paid or payable, as reduced by the amount of TDS on any income which is subject to deduction or collection and which
is taken into account in computing such total income. Here too, according to the revenue, the only reduction permissible is TDS. It is only after
amendment of the provision with effect from 01.04.2007, the tax credit u/s 115JAA has to be given before charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and
234C. The Revenue has also relied on a circular No. 14/2006 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which contains the ""Explanatory Notes on
provisions relating to Direct Taxes"" under the Finance Act, 2006 and the relevant portion of the circular reads as follows:
38.2. It has been represented from several quarters that the tax credit allowed u/s 115JAA is not different from the tax paid in advance and credit
for having paid the minimum alternate tax should be allowed against the tax liability determined on assessment. On a similar analogy, credit for
taxes paid in a country outside India has also been recommended to be allowed so that interest is not charged on an amount that equals to the
taxes paid outside India. Accordingly, for calculating interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, the Finance Act, 2006 has provided for
(a) reduction of tax credit allowed to be set off u/s 115JAA from the tax on the total income; and
(b) reduction of the amount of relief of tax allowed u/s 90 and 90A and deduction from the Indian Income Tax before furnishing the return of
income.
38.3. The credit for the above shall also be allowed u/s 140A for calculating tax and interest before furnishing the return of income.
38.4. The above amendments will take effect from 1.4.2007 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008 and
subsequent years.
From a reading of the above, it is clear that there are representations from various quarters that tax credit should be allowed before charging
interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. After considering the representation, law was amended with effect from 01.04.2007 and the same
is applied from the assessment year 2007-2008. It comes into effect only prospectively and not retrospectively. She further contended that Section
140A deals with ""self assessment"" and it speaks of deduction of only TDS amount. There is no mention of MAT credit. Therefore, she submitted
that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Assessee/Respondent submitted that the liability to pay interest u/s 234B can only be computed after the
liability to pay advance tax is calculated, which in turn, depends on the tax payable on the current income. He further contended that the tax credit
is a nature of advance tax with the department and hence, the same has to be set off against the tax payable only. It is also further contended that
as per Sub-section 4 of 115JAA of the Act, tax credit shall be allowed at the stage at which the tax has become payable. It is further contended
that the assessee is entitled to take into account the MAT credit u/s 115JAA, when it computes tax payable u/s 209 i.e. the tax payable on the
current income less the MAT credit available. It is vehemently contended that u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, the interest can only be computed
after the tax credit u/s 115JAA is set off against the tax payable. As per provision of Section 234B(2) of the Act, any tax paid by the assessee u/s
140A or otherwise should be taken into consideration. The word ""or otherwise"" includes the tax credit available with the department i.e. whatever
manner the tax is paid, shall be taken note of in calculating the interest. The learned Counsel further contended that the interest leviable u/s 234A
and 234B are only compensatory in nature and not a penal one and it is only by way of compensation in respect of the tax withheld and since,
MAT credit was available at the beginning of the year and had to set off against the tax payable, no loss has been caused to the revenue, and
therefore, there is no question of charging any interest thereon by way of compensation. To support the above claim, the learned Counsel has
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pranoy Roy and Anr. reported in (2009) 309 ITR 231,
wherein it has been held as follows:
Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy
of interest does not arise.
The learned Counsel further relied on the circular No. 14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 and contended that the amendment in Explanation 1 after
Section 234B brought about by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.04.2007 is clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospectively should
be given. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi, and Commissioner of Income Central II Vs. Suresh N. Gupta, . The learned Counsel further contended that the expression
under Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 115JAA is ""set off"" and not ""deduction"". Therefore, the tax credit has to be set off against tax payable. By
relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindal Exports Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2009) 221
CTR 8, learned Counsel contended that all the points raised now before this Court have already been raised before the Delhi High Court and the
Delhi High Court has also considered the matter in detail and allowed in favour of the assessee. The said judgment squarely applies to the present
case and therefore the same has to be followed. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is in confirmity with law and the same has
to be confirmed.
6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
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 the matter in detail and held that the credit u/s
115JAA should be given effect to before charging of interest u/s 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.
8. In respect of question Nos. 2 and 3, the learned Counsel appearing for the revenue vehemently contended that the Act does not prescribe the
order of priority of adjustments of tax deducted at source, advance tax and tax credit u/s 115JAA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, one has to
take recourse to the Income Tax Rules 1962 for the said purpose. Rule 12(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribed that in the case of a
company, the return of income required to be furnished shall be in Form No. I. Schedule G of Form No. 1 lays down the manner of computing the
total tax payable by the assessee. It also specified the order in which tax deducted at source, Advance tax and tax credit u/s 115JAA shall be
given effect to. Later the Form was amended with effect from 17.08.2001. Therefore, there is no dispute that the tax credit u/s 115JAA shall be
given effect only after determining tax and interest. The Commissioner of Income Tax rightly rejected the contention of the assessee and dismissed
the appeal. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal which is not only inconsistent with the statutory rule but made the
rule crippled and redundant in the absence of any challenge to the rule. The Tribunal held as follows:
6.8. The well established rule of interpretation is that the same expression contained in the Act as well as in the Rules framed thereunder have to
receive an identical construction Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Vasantha, . Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 specifically provides
that where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to issue any notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law is conferred, then,
expressions used in the notification, etc., shall, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context have the same respective meanings as in
the Act or Regulation conferring the power. A rule made by the rule-making authority cannot enlarge or expand the meaning of a word used in a
Section Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aruna Sugars Ltd., or the meaning of the section. If a rule goes beyond what the Section contemplates,
the rule must yield to the statute (see The Central Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen, ; Chandra Kumar Sah and Another Vs. The District Judge
and Others, .
6.9. The rule-making authority is given to the end that the provision of the statute may be better carried out into effect and not with a view to
neutralising or contradicting those provisions East Asiatic Company (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Madras, , The rule-making authority cannot, in
exercise of its rule making power, destroy a substantive right created by a provision of the statute A.H.M. Allaudin Vs. Additional Income Tax
Officer, Tuticorin, Madras, and Others., or alter, affect or abrogate a legislative provision in any other statute Revula Subba Rao and Another Vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, nor can give any greater power to an authority than what is granted in the Act itself Basudeb Hota v.
State of Orissa (1958) 9 STC 663 (Ori).
6.10. In this case on hand we have to first go through the provisions of Section 115JAA regarding adjustment of tax credit. Sub-section (5) of
Section 115JAA reads as under:
set off in respect of brought forward tax credit shall be allowed for any assessment year to the extent of the difference between the tax on his total
income and the tax which would have been payable under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 115JA (or Section 115JB, as the case may
be) for that assessment year.
It can be seen from the above Section that the statute intends to allow set off in respect of brought forward tax credit (MAT credit) and it has to be
allowed to the extent of the difference between the tax on its total income and the tax which would have been payable under the provisions of Sub-
section (1) of Section 115JA. It may be seen that in this Section the legislature has used the word ''tax'' and not ''tax and interest under Sections
234B and 234C of the Act''. In such circumstances it is to be inferred that the intention of the legislature is to allow set off of the MAT credit from
the ''tax'' and not from the total amount including ''tax and interest''. Had it been the intention of the legislature it would have been specifically stated
in the Section itself. By exercising the delegated authority the Central Board of Direct Taxes has framed the forms for filing the returns of income
for the companies and while framing form No. 1 the delegated authority, namely, the CBDT, has included Schedule G (statement of tax) to Form
No. 1. While drafting this Schedule the Board has given the order of preference of adjustment of TDS, advance tax and tax credit u/s 115JAA.
While doing so, the Board has first prescribed charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B and then has prescribed to give credit for MAT
credit available u/s 115JAA of the Act. In our considered view this method of prescribing the order of priority of adjustment of TDS, advance tax
and MAT credit is totally against the intention of the legislature because the legislature by insertion of Sub-section (5) to Section 115JAA has
intended to give set off of MAT credit against the difference between the tax on total income of the assessee and the tax which would have been
payable under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 115JA and not on the total amount of tax and interest under Sections 234B and 234C
as understood by the rule-making authority. Hence in our considered opinion Schedule G to Form No. 1 is totally against the intention of the
legislature which has been clearly prescribed in Section 115JAA. As has been already pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, rules cannot be
contrary to the provisions of Sections or the intention of the legislature. Hence as we have already held that Schedule G to Form No. 1 is contrary
to the provisions of Section 115JAA, we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to give set off of the
MAT credit of Rs. 8,64,72,445/- first before the charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
9. Section 139(1) contemplates that the assessee being a company has to file return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner
and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 12(1(a) of the Income Tax rules 1962 prescribes that the assessee being a
company should file a return of income in Form-I. The said Form No. I prescribes the manner in which the computation has to be made. Schedule
G deals with statement of tax and the same is prescribed in the order in which the tax deduction at source, advance tax and credit u/s 115JAA
should be given effect to and same reads as follows:
Schedule G. Statement of Taxes
Code Amount Code Amount
1. Tax on total income
(a) At normal rates 801 --
(b) At Special rates 802 --
2. Tax on total income (1(a)X1(b))
3.7.5% of adjusted book profit as
computed in Schedule-I-6 810 --
4. Tax payable (higher of 2 and 3 above) 825 --
5. Surcharge(on 4 above) 828 --
6. Tax plus surcharge 829 --
7. Relief u/s 90 -- 91 -- 826 --
8. Balance tax payable (6-7) 840 --
9. Prepaid taxes
(A) Tax deducted/collected at source: (Attach certificate(s)):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. u/s No. of certificates Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) --
(b) --
(c) --
Total of (a) to....) 870 --
(B) Advance tax (Attach challans)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upto 15/6 Upto 15/9 16/9 to 15/12 16/12 to 15/02 16/03 to 31/03 Total
856 857 859 860 860 862
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount(Rs.) 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Other prepaid taxes, if any
(Please specify and attach proof) 876 --
10. Balance tax payable (8-9) 877 --
11. Add: Interest for:
(a) Late filing of return u/s 234A 824 --
(b) Default in payment of advance
tax u/s 234B 843 --
(c) Deferment of advance tax u/s 234C 844 --
12. Total of 11 847 --
13. Total tax and interest payable (10+12) 879 --
14. Tax on self assessment (attach challan):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of payment Income Tax (Rs.) Interest as per 10 above(Rs.) Total(Rs.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
875
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Tax and interest payable (13-14) 880 ---
16. Tax credit to be allowed u/s 115JAA 881 ---
17. Balance tax and interest payable (15-16) 883 ---
18. Refund due, if any 896 ---
19. Tax and interest payable on distributed profits
u/s 115-O/115P as computed in Schedule J.12 897 ---
20. Total payable(17+19) or, as the case may be (19-18) 898 ---
10. Section 295 of the Income Tax Act deals with power to make rules, which reads as follows:
295(1) The Board may, subject to the control of the Central Government, by notification in the Gazette of India, make rules for the whole or any
part of India for carrying our the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters:
....
(p) any other matter which by this Act is to be, or may be, prescribed.
From reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Section authorised the Central Board of Direct Taxes to make rules for whole of India or
part of India for carrying out the purposes of this Act and also it is subject to the control of the Central Government. Sub-section 2 enumerates
some of the important matters, which have been provided by Rules. It is well accepted principle that the rule cannot affect control, enlarge or
detract or derogate from the full operative effect of the provision of section. If any rule purports to do so, it would be void and ultra vires and
further the rule must be consistent or in conformity with the Act. If there is conflict between Rule and the substantial provision of the Act, the Rule
must pave way to the provision of the Act. Further the delegating authority must exercise power strictly within the limit of the authority. Even
though the rule making power is conferred on the said authority, and the rules made are in excess of such delegated power, the rules would be void
even if the Act provides that they shall have effect as though enacted in the Act.
11. In the case of Assam Company Ltd. Vs. State of Assam, , the Supreme Court has considered the scope of the rules and held as follows:
It is an established principle that the power to make rules under an Act is derived from the enabling provision found in such Act. Therefore, it is
fundamental that a delegate on whom such power is conferred has to act within the limits of the authority conferred by the Act and it cannot enlarge
the scope of the Act. A delegate cannot override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making provision which is inconsistent with the
Act. Any rule made in exercise of such delegated power has to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act, and if the rule goes beyond what
the Act contemplates, the rule becomes in excess of the power delegated under the Act, and if it does any of the above, the rule becomes ultra
vires the Act. We have already noticed that none of the provisions of the Act has contemplated any power to be vested in the State Officers to
recompute the agricultural income from tea while proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules in specific terms empowers the State Officers to recompute the
agricultural income from tea different from that which is computed by the Central Officers under the Central Act. Thus, it is seen that this Rule is
not only made beyond the rule-making power of the State u/s 50 of the Act but also runs counter to the object of the Act itself, and enlarges the
scope of the Act. The same also suffers from the other vices pointed out by us hereinabove, hence such a Rule, in our opinion, is ultra vires the
Act. Therefore, proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules to the extent it empowers the State Officers to recompute the agricultural income already computed
by the Central Officers is ultra vires the State Act.
12. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, also, the Supreme Court has considered
the scope of rules and held as follows:
It has been rightly observed that the Rules were meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and they could not take away
what was conferred by the Act or whittle down its effect.
13. In the case of Veena Kumari Tandon Vs. Neelam Bhalla and Others, , the Supreme has held as follows:
It is now a well settled principle of law that a Legislative Act shall prevail over the subordinate legislation. Bye-Laws must, therefore, conform to
the provisions of the Act and cannot act in derogation thereof.
14. In the case of Additional District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration v. Siri Ram reported in 2000 AIR SCW 2205, the Supreme Court
has held as follows:
It is well recognised principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule making power by an Act does not enable the rule making
authority to make rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. From the above
discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that by amending the Rules and Form P.5, the rule making authority have exceeded the power conferred
on it by the Land Reforms Act.
15. In the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and others, , the Supreme Court has held
as follows:
After giving our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by Mr.Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold
that even in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority can impose tax or fee. In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or fee
by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the
delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory
of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power.
16. In the case of Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, , the Supreme Court has held as follows:
We are also of the opinion that a delegated power to legislate by making rules ''for carrying out the purposes of the Act'' is a general delegation
without laying down any guidelines; it cannot be so exercised as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities not
contemplated by the provisions of the Act itself.
17. In the case of Corporation Bank v. Saraswathi Abharansala reported in (2009) 19 VST 84 : 2009 (1) SCC 540, the Apex Court held that if
the substantive provision of a statute provides for refund, the State by subordinate legislature cannot lay down that the tax paid my mistake would
not be refunded. The Court further held that when a statute cannot be considered in such a manner as would defeat the object, the legislature is
presumed to be aware of the consequences following therefrom. The statute should be read in such manner as to do justice to the parties.
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 u/s 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 u/s 115JAA should be given effect to before charging the interest u/s 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 u/s 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.
19. In view of the above, these Tax Case Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same are dismissed.
