2010 (5) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was earning as much as US $ 600 per day. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) thought this to be a ground for reducing the disallowance from 25 % to 10 % which, in the view of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was ground enough for deleting the entire disallowance. Once the assessee company was receiving charges in respect of the field engineers, who had gone abroad, the travel expenses in respect of such field engineers could not have been disallowed. – claim of provision made for warranty allowed - ITA 486/2010 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2010 - Advocates who appeared in this case: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> For the Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Ms Anshul Sharma For the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the learned counsel for the Revenue had not been able to point out any evidence on record to the contrary. She, however, submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had reduced the disallowance from 25 % to 10 % and had not deleted the entire disallowance in view of the fact that the entire duration of the stay of the field engineers of the assessee, who had gone abroad, could not be attributed entirely to business purposes. She drew our attention to the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to explain the logic behind the decision of the said Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to reduce the disallowance from 25 % to 10 %. The relevant observations made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... travel expenses in respect of such field engineers could not have been disallowed. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the law and arrived at the correct conclusion. There is no tangible evidence or material on record to suggest otherwise. Thus, in the absence of any perversity in the factual findings, we cannot interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal. 5. Insofar as the question of claim of provision for warranty is concerned, the Tribunal held as under:- “17. Apropos ground no.2, i.e provision for warranty, Ld. Counsel has demonstrated that effectively the expenditure subsequently incurred on meeting out warranty claim was more than the provision which is evident from the chart of 5 years. Respectfully following Hon’b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X