9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the decision of the High Court of Karnataka is in the assessee's own case [ 2020 (8) TMI 768 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in respect of the correctness of the provision made by the assessee for warranty. These transactions are identical and the assessee has been consistently following the said method for several assessment years, which has been noted by the High Court of Karnataka as well as by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal and the CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee had followed the scientific method and complied with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. The above reasons, we find no good grounds to inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Rotork Control Ltd Vs CIT wherein it was clearly held that expenditure was allowable provided the provisions created was to be scientifically established which is not the case on hand as no details nor evidences were produced by the Assessee to substantiate its claim? 3. We have heard heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. 4. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the provision made by the assessee has been done in a scientific manner and whether it has followed the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [314 ITR 62] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been consistently following the same method and it is found to be scientific and as per the conditions laid down in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. 7. In reply, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant would contend that the decision of this Court in the case of Renowned Auto Products (supra) would bind this Court and the decision of the High Court of Karnataka will not be a binding precedent of this Court. 8. As a general proposition, the learned Senior Standing Counsel is right. However, the thin but marked difference is that the decision of the High Court of Karnataka is in the assessee's own case in respect of the correctness of the provision made by the assessee for warranty. 9. These transactions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
