9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AO disallowing provision for warranty expenses to the tune of ₹ 95,33,312 disregarding the orders of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 in the assessee s own case. Facts in brief 3. The assessee M/s. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Apple Computers Inc. Ltd., Ireland, was incorporated in India on 19.1.1996 and is engaged in trading hardware products manufactured by the parent company and also provide marketing and related services for promoting the products of the parent company. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 on 30.11.2005 declaring a total income of ₹ 4,61,47,020. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 15.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. This is not the case here. Here it is being pointed out that while the actual expenditure in A.Y. 2004-05 is 97% of the provision and in A.Y. 2006-07, it is 83% and in A.Y. 2007-08, it is 90%, it is only 49.77% this year revealing the glaring mismatch deserving to disallow a portion of warranty provision on the basis of principle of reversal and mismatch which, I observe, has been rightly applied by the A.O. Thus, no violation of principles of judicial discipline is being made here by upholding the addition and dismissing this ground of appeal. 6. Ld. AR made the following submissions before us. (1) The assessee provides warranty to its products against defects in materials and workmanship under the normal use for a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se laws: - ITO v. Wanson (India) Ltd. (1983) 5 ITD 102 (Pune) - Singhal Co. v. ITO (1982) 1 ITD 476 (CHD) - Jay Bee Industries v. DCIT (1998) 61 TTJ 403 (ASR) - Voltas Ltd. v. DCIT (1998) 61 TTJ 543 (BOM) - CIT v. Majestic Auto (1994) 48 TTJ 566 (CHD) - CIT DCIT (Asst.) v. Wipro GE Medical Systems (ITA No.438/02) - M/s. Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, Chennai (2007) 293 ITR 311 (SC) - Wipro GE Medical Systems v. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 455 (BANG) - CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. Delhi High Court judgment dated 5.5.2005 in ITA No.107 of 2005 - Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) - Bharath Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 162 CTR 325 (SC) - IRC v. Mitsubish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l evaluation. Basis so given has not been held as artificial. No material has been placed on record by revenue that actual expenditure of earlier years is mismatch with the estimation. In view of these facts and the position of law as discussed above, we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in allowing the expenditure. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the facts and issues of the case are identical to that of the A.Y. 2003-04 which have been already adjudicated by our predecessors. The Revenue has not brought out any material on record to establish otherwise. From the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant it is evident that the company has complied with the guidelines issued by Chartered Accountants of India with resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
