ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PLASSER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 6789/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2021-223 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, which had decided the issue of provision for warranty obligations in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a disallowance made on account of provision for warranty expenses. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by a decision in their own case by the Jurisdictional High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the provision for warranty expenses, treated as a contingent liability, was correctly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting this disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in relation to the final decision, but the case discusses provisions for warranty expenses which relates to accounting treatment of liabilities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT DR

Hearing: 25.03.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6789/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] ACIT Vs. M/s. Plasser India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi I A-D, Vandhna Building Janpath S.O. Janpath New Delhi-110001 PAN No.AAACP6670L Appellant Respondent Appellant by Ms. Pooja Swaroop CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate Sh. Hapreet Singh, CA Date of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the detailed finding of the Assessing Officer while considering the assessment order dated 26/12/2023, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue,

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,46,66,27-4/- made on account of unsubstantiated provision for warranty expenses without verifying whether the conditions laid down in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62. SC) were satisfied?

The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and or deleted or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case in ITR 17/1997 order dated 12.12.2007. A copy of the order is placed on record.

Referring to the said order Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that whether the provision to meet cost for fulfilment of warranty obligations under the contract with customers, as a contingent liability or not came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case and the Hon’ble High Court following its decision in CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (278 ITR 337) decided the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the orders of the lower Page | 2

authorities and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case we find that issue is squarely covered by the decision in assessee’s own case wherein the Hon’ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Further on perusal of the order of the Hon’ble High Court we observed that the Ld. Standing Counsel for the revenue had stated before the Hon’ble High Court that the issue in appeal is covered by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, respectfully following the said decision we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SANJAY AWASTHI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.05.2026

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Page | 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →