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 22.09.2006 passed in ITA No.220/Mds/2006. 2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:- The assessing officer passed an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act wherein he has given credit for brought forward MAT credit after charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C. While computing the tax first, computation of tax was to take place and thereafter credit for MAT available under Section 115 JAA, TDS and advance tax were to be reckoned with and thereafter only interest under Section 234B and 234C had to be taken note of. Aggrieved by the same appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who following the judgment in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Limited decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal, which following its judgment in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Limited dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed this appeal by formulating the following questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the charging of interest under Section 234 B and C after considering the MAT credit available to the assessee was proper? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in not considering the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in 263 ITR Page 306? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that for the purpose of computing interest credit under Section 115 JAA should be set off and the interest can be imposed only on net liability? 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. 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. 3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. 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 first question of law, 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 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. 5. 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. 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 both the questions of law have been answered against the revenue in favour of the assessee. 6. The questions of law in this case also are identical to the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench Judgment cited supra, the appeal is dismissed since the questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee.