Judgment K. Raviraja Pandian, J. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to adjust the MAT credit before charging interest u/s 234B & 234C? 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?". are the questions of law framed in this appeal, which is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, Chennai, dated 05.06.2009 passed in ITA No.1718/Mds/2008, relating to the assessment year 2002-2003. 2. The facts:- (i) The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of fertilizer products, pesticides, sugar, industrial alchohol etc. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee filed its return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.93,86,710/-under normal computation and admitted book profit under Section 115 JB of Rs.48,91,62,978/-. The Assessing Officer computed interest u/s 234B and 234C amounting to Rs.83,295/-and adjusted the MAT credit u/s 115JA after arriving at tax and the interest payable and thus completed the assessment. (ii) On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar reported in 83 TTJ (Chennai) 427. (iii) Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (iv) Aggrieved against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the revenue filed an appeal before this Court on the premise that the Tribunals order in Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. was taken on appeal in T.C.No.887 of 2004. 3. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. A batch of cases with identical set of facts has been disposed of by this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. 3. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 4. A batch of cases with identical set of facts has been disposed of by this Court in T.C.A.Nos.887 of 2004 etc. batch on 09.04.2009 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chemplast Sanmar Limited reported in 314 ITR 231, wherein the first question of law raised was "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? The issue has been 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 2nd question of law, the Division Bench has held that 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. 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. 6. 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. 6. Thus the two questions of law were already answered in the batch of cases referred to above against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. We do not find any extenuating reason for admitting the tax appeals. Following the Division Bench Judgment cited supra, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.