M/S.APOLLO TYRES LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 23 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT(TP)A No.189/COCH/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LIMITED 3RD FLOOR,AREEKAL MANSION,NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682036(PAN:AAACA6990Q) BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ISAAC THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1),ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682018. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.P.K.R.MENONSR.COUNSEL GOITAXES SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A. No. 23/2017 -2- J U D G M E N T S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Joseph Markos and learned Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham for parties. 2. M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd Kochi/Assessee is the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. 2.1 The assessee assails the order dated 10.01.2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.189/Coch/2016. The issues relate to the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,453,586 (Rs.5,020,000 - Rs.1.566,414) being year-end provision for payment of commission as an unascertained liability?

I.T.A. No. 23/2017 -3- b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material or evidence on record to justify the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sum of Rs.3,453,586 cannot be allowed as deduction for the assessment year in question? 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that the substantial questions of law raised in the instant appeal are similar or identical to substantial question no.(c) in the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.249/2015. On 26.08.2021, in ITA No.249/2015, question no.(c) was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. By adopting the reasons stated therein the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the observations made therein shall apply to the instant Assessment Year as well. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE jjj

I.T.A. No. 23/2017 -4- APPENDIX OF ITA 23/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, KOCHI. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF DIRECTIONS DATED 23.12.2015 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS PANEL ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF DIRECTIONS AND 20.06.2016 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS PANEL ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE G CERTIFIED COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN