9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act'") has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.8.2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A", New Delhi, (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA Nos. 114/DEL/95 and 765/DEL/95, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. 3. The assessee has claimed the following questions for determination by this Court: 1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the various agreements and correspondence, the Tribunal is justified under the law to hold that the Appellant Corporation is entitled to deduction of Rs. 1000/- per bus for 670 buses, amounting to Rs. 6,70,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- per bus cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ape for use by Haryana Roadways. So far as the Chassis of the buses are concerned, the same are being purchased from different manufacturers who guarantee them as a warranty for five years, but for bodies of the buses, there was no such written guarantee or warranty. The payment of the buses was being made in instalments spreading over a period of 5 years. The engineers or the technical staff of the appellant used to visit various places to remove the defects. Faced with certain practical difficulties and in view of the fact that the job of removing defects was time consuming, the Board of Directors of the appellant-Corporation decided that Rs. 2,000/- per bus was to be considered as bus maintenance charges for five years for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no notice had been given as required under the Act. 7. The matter did not rest here and went up in appeal before the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal by the order under appeal held that looking into the whole conspectus of the matter, one-time deduction of Rs. 1,000/- per bus on an average would be a fair deduction. The assessee still feeling dissatisfied has filed the present appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. The assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had completely ignored that it was a contractual liability of the assessee and necessary conditions of sale and warranty for another five y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second party. b. The delivery of vehicles shall be at respective places as per plan and any expenses incurred in removing the manufacturing defects detected after delivery of vehicles shall be borne by the party of the second part, or a fixed amount may be determined as per mutual consent for removal of those defects, which shall be borne by the party of the second part. After the manufacturing defects have been rectified/removed, the party of the first part shall issue a certificate of fitness where after the sale shall be considered complete." 12. The liability on account of guarantee/warranty for part manufacturing rectifications, amendments or repairs was to be borne by the assessee. It was open to the parties to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
