2011 (9) TMI 994 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of provision for warranty.
2. Disallowance u/s 14A on account of administrative expenses relating to dividend income.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Provision for Warranty:
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of commercial vehicles, tractors, two-wheelers, and gears, challenged the confirmation of the disallowance of provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 91.70 lacs. The CIT (A) had granted part relief but confirmed the disallowance of the additional warranty provision for engine and transmission of LCV. The assessee argued that the provision for warranty is a present obligation based on past events and should be allowed as per the mercantile system of accounting, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India Limited, 314 ITR 62. However, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal found that the additional warranty claim was not based on past history or scientific study and thus amounted to a double claim, leading to deferment of tax liability. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to disallow the additional warranty provision of Rs. 91.70 lacs, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

2. Disallowance u/s 14A on Account of Administrative Expenses Relating to Dividend Income:
The AO disallowed Rs. 45,80,999/- u/s 14A, which the CIT (A) restricted to Rs. 5 lacs. The CIT (A) reasoned that the assessee did not maintain separate books for funds utilized for earning exempt income and that general funds were used for investments generating tax-free income. The Tribunal considered the decisions in CIT vs. The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT, which emphasized that disallowance under Section 14A should be based on a reasonable estimate if the assessee's method is unsatisfactory. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide de novo, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Thus, ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal and ground No.1 of the revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

General Grounds:
Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal and ground No.2 of the revenue's appeal were general in nature and did not require adjudication.

Conclusion:
Both the appeals of the assessee and the revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in open court on the 16th day of September, 2011.