Judgment K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, Chennai, dated 212. 2005 passed in ITA No.595/Mds/2004. 2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:- The assessee is a Company engaged in manufacture and sale of sugars and chemicals. For the assessment year 2002-2003, the assessing officer gave set off MAT credit to the extent of Rs.20,04,803/-. The assessee is aggrieved by the restriction of MAT credit to Rs.20,04,803/- as against the claim of Rs.21,34,792/-. Apart from that the assessee is also aggrieved for having treated a credit available only in September 2002. Besides, the assessee also agreed by the computation of interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Income-tax Act. Against that order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as far as the restriction of MAT credit is concerned sustaining the order of the assessing officer. As far as tax credit under Section 115JAA is concerned the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the assessing officer should have treated the tax credit allowance under Section 115JAA on par with TDS and is directed to do so. Correspondingly, interest calculated under Section 234-B and 234-C also will undergo changes and the assessing officer is directed to recompute the same. Against that order the Department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sustained the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the Departmental appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed this appeal by formulating the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that MAT credit has to be considered on payment of advance tax, therefore, such a payment or credit has to be taken into account while computing the interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. 4. The very same issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revenue and perused the materials available on record. 4. The very same issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009 and Division Bench has answered the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by observing thus: "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. 5. The question of law involved in this case also is identical to the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench Judgment cited supra, the appeal is dismissed since the question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee.