2017 (11) TMI 1313 - HC - Income Tax

Royalty and Warranty - Deletion of Addition made by AO on account of Royalty - Held That - The ITAT has referred to earlier year case of same assessee 2013 (4) TMI 872 - ITAT DELHI in which appeal is decided in favor of assessee on grounds that appeal filed by revenue is delayed. Therefore this appeal of revenue is dismissed and additon made by AO of ₹ 21,35,45,197/- on account of royalty paid to SEC Korea is deleted. Deletion of Addition made by AO on account of Provision of Warranty/After Sale Service Compensation- Held That - CIT(A) delete the addition done by AO on grounds that AO has done the same on Adhoc basis but basis the factual findings the same is made on scientific Basis. No substantial question of law arises - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Royalty payment to SEC Korea.
3. Provision of warranty/after sale service compensation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the court. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was directed against the impugned order dated 30th September 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The delay of 31 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the court allowed the application related to the delay.

2. The issue of royalty payment to SEC Korea was discussed in the judgment. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of a specific amount on account of royalty paid to SEC Korea. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred to its earlier order involving the same Assessee on this issue for an earlier Assessment Year. The court upheld the ITAT's decision in favor of the Assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the same impugned common order of the ITAT for a different Assessment Year.

3. The judgment also dealt with the provision of warranty/after-sale service compensation. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of this provision. The CIT (A) disagreed with the AO's view that the provision was made on an ad hoc basis and instead found that it was made on a scientific basis. The court concluded that this issue did not give rise to a substantial question of law and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In summary, the judgment addressed issues related to the delay in filing the appeal, royalty payment to SEC Korea, and provision of warranty/after-sale service compensation. The court allowed the application related to the delay, upheld decisions in favor of the Assessee regarding royalty payment based on previous orders, and dismissed the appeal concerning the provision of warranty/after-sale service compensation.