9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e preferred this appeal on the following grounds:- 2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of types of heavy vehicles. For the Assessment Year 2011-12 they have filed their return of income on 3/9/2011 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,37,24,65,961/-. Assessment, however, by order dated 19/02/2014 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was complete at the determination of the total loss of the assessee at a Rs. 1,21,66,98,041/- by making certain additions/disallowances, namely, on account of provision for warranty to the tune of Rs. 7,27, 77, 300/-, depreciation on licence fee to the tune of Rs. 55,34, 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for making such a provision, the provision is not allowable. Learned Assessing Officer held that such a provision was made on uncertain facts and without any scientific basis. 6. Ld. CIT(A) considered this aspect in detail, and as a matter of fact, found from the record that contrary to the observations of the learned Assessing Officer in the assessment order that no details are scientific method of computation of provision for warranty was filed by the assessee, the assessee in fact, furnish a computation of the provision for warranty along with its reply dated 17/02/2014. Ld. CIT(A), further found that in fact this issue had arisen in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year and such an addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is factually incorrect. Since the Ld. CIT(A) applied the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Ltd. (supra) to the facts he found on verification of record, the matter does not require any demand to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. 9. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR, assessment order nowhere show that the learned Assessing Officer considered the details furnished by the assessee along with the letter dated 17/02/2014 not ready comment on such details as to their consistency and genuineness. It is only on verification of the record Ld. CIT(A) found that the learned Assessing Officer added i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 96, 387/-, and it is submitted that this is comprising of 2 components, namely, processing fee of Rs. 66, 18, 000/-and interest of Rs. 5,78,387/-in respect of the loan taken from spin investments (India) Ltd for business purpose. According to the assessee, under the loan agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s spin investments (India) Ltd on 22/3/2011, assessee has been under an obligation to pay an upfront fee of Rs. 66, 18, 000/-and also interested 19% thereon, which came to Rs. 5, 78, 380/-proportionately for the period between 22/3/2011 and 31/3/2011. The contention of the assessee has been that since the tax was not deducted at source by the assessee, the assessee Suo Moto disallowed the upfront/processing fee in the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
