CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd.

64 Taxmann.com 324High Court2015#3133 most cited

What is CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. authority for?

Provisions for warranty expenses are allowable as a business deduction if they represent a probable outflow of resources and a reliable estimate can be made of the obligation. This applies even if the provision is revised based on actuarial valuation and expected claims.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. · provision for warranty · allowable deduction · business expenditure · actuarial valuation · matching cost with revenue · definite liability · contingent liability

Also reported as

242 CTR 245

Sections most often in play

Section 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expendituresection 92(1)cost plus methodcomparable uncontrolled price methodfunctional analysissection 92c(3)section 80jjasection 92fsection 80jjaamanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd.

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA NO. 7691/Del/2017 stands allowed

ITA 1662/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application no. 475-476/Del/2018 (Arising out of ITA no. 1811 & 7691/Del/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14) Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, New Delhi E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AAACA0364L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Tarundeep Singh & Tarun Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay I.Bara, CIT-DR & Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2019 Assessment Year : 20…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 7085/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: Bench ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. DCIT, LTU Plot No.40, Sector – 44 New Delhi Gurgaon 122 002 PAN: AAACW1336L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Mr. Ramit Katyal, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18/01/2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1787/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: Bench ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. DCIT, LTU Plot No.40, Sector – 44 New Delhi Gurgaon 122 002 PAN: AAACW1336L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Mr. Ramit Katyal, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18/01/2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1972/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: Bench ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 AY: 2011-12 AY: 2012-13 Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. DCIT, LTU Plot No.40, Sector – 44 New Delhi Gurgaon 122 002 PAN: AAACW1336L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Mr. Ramit Katyal, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18/01/2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S East Coast Constructions & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. East Coast Constructions & Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. Industries Ltd., No. 4, Moores Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaace1662P] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Tripurasundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.25,24,97,133/- Towards Expenses Relatable To The Retention Money Withheld By The Contractees.

For Appellant: Ms. Tripurasundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. East Coast Constructions & Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. Industries Ltd., No. 4, Moores Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai 600 006. [PAN:AAACE1662P] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Tripurasundari, CIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by…

M/S Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Gea Cooling Tower Technologies (India) P Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT (OSD) Corp Range 2, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 509/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 509/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Ruby George, CIT

…certained liability. On the basis of relevant facts the provision cannot be treated as a contingent liability and therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. Same view was taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd, 242 CTR 245, wherein held that the assessee consistently making provision for warranty on the basis of actuarial valuation in respect of machines sold during the year could not be precluded from revising this provision after taking into consideration that warranty period of the goods sold under warranty was exceeding and provision already provided in a parti…

M/S. Philips India Limited (Formerly Philips Electronics India Litd.), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2489/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2489/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s Philips India Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [PAN: AABCP 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order of the ACIT Circle-12(2), Kolkata,…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1433/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e and ascertained liability. On the basis of relevant facts the provision cannot be treated as a contingent liability and therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. Same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd, 242 CTR 245, wherein held that the assessee consistently making provision for warranty on the basis of actuarial valuation in respect of machines sold during the year could not be precluded from revising this provision after taking into consideration that warranty period of the goods sold under warranty was exceeding and provision already :-12-: ITA No. 143…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1432/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e and ascertained liability. On the basis of relevant facts the provision cannot be treated as a contingent liability and therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. Same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd, 242 CTR 245, wherein held that the assessee consistently making provision for warranty on the basis of actuarial valuation in respect of machines sold during the year could not be precluded from revising this provision after taking into consideration that warranty period of the goods sold under warranty was exceeding and provision already :-12-: ITA No. 143…

ACIT, Chennai vs. East Coast Construction & Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1431/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e and ascertained liability. On the basis of relevant facts the provision cannot be treated as a contingent liability and therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. Same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd, 242 CTR 245, wherein held that the assessee consistently making provision for warranty on the basis of actuarial valuation in respect of machines sold during the year could not be precluded from revising this provision after taking into consideration that warranty period of the goods sold under warranty was exceeding and provision already :-12-: ITA No. 143…

East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 864/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. PrabhuMukunthArun Kumar
Section 263bSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…e and ascertained liability. On the basis of relevant facts the provision cannot be treated as a contingent liability and therefore, the same was allowable as deduction. Same view was taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd, 242 CTR 245, wherein held that the assessee consistently making provision for warranty on the basis of actuarial valuation in respect of machines sold during the year could not be precluded from revising this provision after taking into consideration that warranty period of the goods sold under warranty was exceeding and provision already :-12-: ITA No. 143…

M/S Phillips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 612/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Philips India Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (Formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcp 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 612/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Philips India Ltd. -vs- ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata (formerly Philips Electronics India Ltd.) [PAN: AABCP 9487 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Sonde, Advocate Shri Ketan Kr. Ved, Advocate Shri H.P. Srivastava, AR For the Revenue : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal filed by the assessee agains…

DCIT, Cir.-7(1)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S. Heinz India Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Nishant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-7(1)-2 M/s Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 130, First D-Shiv Sagar Estate, 7th Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, floor, Dr. Annie Besant M.K. Road Road Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400018 PAN No. AAACH0667B Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Jayant Kumar, DR Assessee by : Mr. Nishant Thakkar, AR Date of Hearing : 10/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant…

F Harley & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…d reported in (2007) 293 ITR 311 (Mad) ; (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd vs CIT reported in (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del) ; (iv) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Whirlpool of India Ltd reported in (2011) 242 CTR 245 (Del) ; 4.2. Accordingly the assessee replied that there is no error in the claim of expenditure towards ‘provision for purchases’ made by the assessee. It was stated that the assessee had duly made the aforesaid submissions vide letter dated 7.3.2014 even before the ld JCIT (AO) during the course of assessment proceedings pursuant to the specif…

ACIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5876/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…that the expenditure was incurred to promote its own products, that it had not advertised the brand owned by its AEs.He relied upon the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(64 Taxmann.com 150), Honda Ciel Power Products (64Taxmann.com328),Whirlpool of India Ltd.(64 Taxmann.com 324),delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.Referring to the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India Private Ltd.(231 taxmann 113),he stated that matter should not be remanded back to the file of the TPO in view of the said decision. He further argued that the assessee had made investment as per the policy declared by government of…

L'Oreal India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 7714/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin AmalsadualaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 254(1)Section 92

…that the expenditure was incurred to promote its own products, that it had not advertise the brand owned by its AEs. He relied upon the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(64 Taxmann.com 150), Honda Ciel Power Products (64Taxmann.com328),Whirlpool of India Ltd.(64 Taxmann.com 324), delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.Referring to the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication India private limited(231 taxmann 113),he stated that matter should not be remanded back to the file of the TPO in view of the said decision. The Departmental Representative (DR)stated that in the case of LG Electronics (140ITD41)the spe…

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5650/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Amrinder Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…s will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. Relying on the above decision in the case of Rotork Controls (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Whirlpool of India [242 CTR 245], too, dismissed the grounds of the revenue for disallowing provision for warranty. Our attention is also invited to the order passed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case for the assessment year 2006- 07, wherein, similar ad-hoc disallowance of warranty were deleted, as under: “We agree with the assessee’s contention tha…