Judgment Tax Case Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, Chennai, dated 111. 2004 passed in ITA No.268/Mds/2004 K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, Chennai, dated 111. 2004 passed in ITA No.268/Mds/2004 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03. 2. The assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 2001-2002. While processing the return u/s 143(1), after giving credit to TDS and charging interest u/s 143 (1) 234B and 234C, the net demand payable was Rs.19,20,254. By revision order dated 31.03.2003, the demand was reduced to nil after setting off MAT credit u/s 115JAA. The assessee filed a petition for rectification u/s 154 to rectify the order dated 31.03.2003. The Assessing Officer rejected the petition on the ground that the credit for various payments should be allowed only as per Schedule G to Form No.1, and the order cannot be varied. Aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. The assessee filed a second appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal following its earlier decision in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Limited for the assessment year 2002-03 held that MAT credit should be set off first and then only tax to be paid. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed the present appeal by formulating the following questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off 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. 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 and it has observed as follows:- "18. 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 and it 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 this case also are identical as the one considered by the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench Judgment cited supra, the appeal is dismissed.