Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 304/2013 and CM 10305/2013 (delay) . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant . Through Advocate (appearance not given) . . . versus . . . BOSE CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through Advocate (appearance not given) . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA . O R D E R . 12.07.2013 . . . This appeal filed by the Revenue which pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07 raises two questions. The first questions relates to provision for warranty which as per the Revenue is a contingent liability. The issue is covered by several decisions of the Delhi High Court against the Revenue namely CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. (2008) 171 Taxman 13 (Del); CIT Vs. Sony India (P) Ltd. (2007) 160 Taxman 397 (Del) and CIT Vs. M/s. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR 369 (Delhi). . We fail to understand why the Revenue has raised this issue without referring to the said judgments. We also note that the quantum of provisions for warranty @0.5% of the annual sales is not disputed or challenged on the ground that it is not based on past data and is irrational. . The second issue raised by the Revenue pertains to AMC charges which were received by the Assessee but have been bifurcated or divided in case the AMC period extended and went beyond the financial year in question. The respondent/assessee has been consistently following the said practice and the amount involved is Rs.7,45,000/-. . . In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed in limine. . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J . JULY 12, 2013 . st . . . $ 18 .