Judgment K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, Chennai, dated 17.07.2009 passed in ITA No.0013/Mds/2009, relating to the assessment year 2000-2001 by formulating the following questions of law:- "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?". 2.The facts:- (i) The assessee company doing the business of Trading fertilizers. The assessment in respect of the assessment year was originally assessed under Section 143(1) on 28.03.2002 and subsequently revised under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 07.02.2003. Subsequent to the completion of assessment, the Assessing Officer, on perusal of the records was of the view that credit of MAT was wrongly given in the same assessment year and therefore issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed on 10.09.2007 under Section 143(3) by holding that the credits for MAT was wrongly given and on that score added a sum of Rs.81,84,000/-. (ii) The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ho 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, by following its own order in Chemplast Sanmar reported in 83 TTJ (Chennai) 427 and the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited vs. ACIT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. (iv) Aggrieved against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the revenue filed an appeal before this Court. 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 appeal is dismissed. No costs.