2013 (10) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D.V. Shylendra Kumar AND B. SREENIVASE GOWDA , JJ. For the Appellant : K.V. Aravind. For the Respondent : A. Shankar and M. Lava. JUDGMENT:- This appeal by the Revenue under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] posing the 'following two substantial questions of law for answer reading as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of a provision made towards warranty which is not made on any scientific basis and past experience and made merely on estimate basis? 2. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the actual expenditure on account of warranty charges was ₹ 39,788/- as against the pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the appeal of the assessee and in the further appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal reversed this finding and opined that the provision of this nature should be allowed as a revenue expenditure incurred during the financial year relevant for the assessment year. 5. It is against this order and on this aspect, the present appeal with the questions as indicated above. 6. Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants - revenue submits that these questions are now covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd v. Commissioner of income tax' reported in [2009] 314 ITR 62; that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of this ruling as the Tribunal had passed orders .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Officer and we do not want to preempt that examination in this order, but the facts are as noticed above. 10. In this view of the matter, while this appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the order of the Tribunal insofar as it related to allowing of the appeal of the assessee towards warranty provision, the matter is sent to the Assessing Officer for redetermination of the quantum that can be allowed as a provision towards warranty claims in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Rotork Controls' case (supra) and the guidelines contained in this Judgment. 11. With regard to the quantification and other aspects, it is open to the assessee to put forth its stand before the Assessing Officer. The matter being r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X