9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alculated @ 0.5% thereof. Actual warrant expenditure during the same period was to the tune of Rs.177.17 lakhs. In the previous period also, consistently, the actual expenditure exceeded the provision made for warrant - Assessee had produced various details of the past working out provisions, which form the basis for the present year. In that view of the matter – Decided against the Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. 828,829 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2013 - AKIL KURESHI AND SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : K.M. Parikh. for the Respondent : Deepak Shah and Tej Shah. ORDER:- PER : Akil Kureshi Revenue is in appeal against the common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ["Tribunal" for short] dated 31st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Assessing Officer questioned such claim on the ground that the said liability was not expended in present year but was contingent liability. Before CIT(A) and the Tribunal, while relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rotork Controls [India] Ltd v. CIT, reported in 314 ITR 52 assessee further pointed out that its total sale during the year under consideration was Rs. 9722.32 lakhs. The provision made for warranty thus came to a bare 0.5% of the total sales. The actual warranty expenses incurred during the year under consideration were Rs. 177.17 lakhs. In the earlier years also, the actual warranty expenses far exceeded the provision made. It was therefore contended that provision for warranty was neither excessive no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine this question further in light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Rotork Control (India) Ltd. (supra), however, in the present case, salient features are that the assessee had a gross sale of Rs.9722.32 lakhs during the year under consideration and the provision for warranty was calculated @ 0.5% thereof. Actual warrant expenditure during the same period was to the tune of Rs.177.17 lakhs. In the previous period also, consistently, the actual expenditure exceeded the provision made for warrant. Additionally, we also noticed that the assessee had produced various details of the past working out provisions, which form the basis for the present year. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
