Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62Supreme Court of India2009#69 most cited

What is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

739

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 314 ITR 62 · Section 37(1) · provision for warranty expenses · allowability of provision · definition of liability · present obligation · reliable estimate · mercantile system of accounting · revenue expenditure deduction

Also reported as

223 CTR 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 147Section 234CSection 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 35denduring benefitsection 32(1)put to useblock of assetssection 40(a)(i)intangible assetsmercantile system of accountingsection 35section 37(1)section 32revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

…of the project. For that purpose assessee will have to rely on earlier years' experience and report of the technical personnel Question of provisions for warranty was discussed at length by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd.(314 ITR 62) We are aware that warranty cannot be equated with provisions made for the projects to be completed by an assessee, but the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Court are applicable to the case under consideration Provision after all is only an estimation of probable expenditure to be incurred after the end of a particular year. Besides, in our opin…

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1590/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(m)

…of an estimate of the cost to be incurred by following scientific method. The same supported with the copy of technical report from independent consultant. He submitted that considering the decision of Apex court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd [314 ITR 62] the same should be allowable as expense. 11. Ld. AR further submitted that similar issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT orders in assessee's sister concerns i.e, M/s. Kosi Bridge Infrastructure Co. Ltd. in ITA.No. 582, 576 & 581/Mum/2020 dated 08.10.2021 and M/s. Gorakhpur Infrastructure Co. Ltd. in ITA.No. 574, 846 & 847/Mum/2020 dated…

Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…o warranty has been paid by the appellant. In other words, the machines manufactured by the appellant are of such high quality that there has not been a single occasion in three years requiring payment of warranty. In the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has mentioned that - 'from analysis of the various decision of the supreme court, in which a similar issue was decided, the principle which emerges is that if the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and if the facts…

The Deputy Commr. Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Rajkot vs. M/S Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…o warranty has been paid by the appellant. In other words, the machines manufactured by the appellant are of such high quality that there has not been a single occasion in three years requiring payment of warranty. In the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has mentioned that - 'from analysis of the various decision of the supreme court, in which a similar issue was decided, the principle which emerges is that if the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and if the facts…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Radhe Renewable Energy Developement Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…o warranty has been paid by the appellant. In other words, the machines manufactured by the appellant are of such high quality that there has not been a single occasion in three years requiring payment of warranty. In the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has mentioned that - 'from analysis of the various decision of the supreme court, in which a similar issue was decided, the principle which emerges is that if the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and if the facts…

M/S Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…o warranty has been paid by the appellant. In other words, the machines manufactured by the appellant are of such high quality that there has not been a single occasion in three years requiring payment of warranty. In the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. 314 ITR 62 relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has mentioned that - 'from analysis of the various decision of the supreme court, in which a similar issue was decided, the principle which emerges is that if the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and if the facts…

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

…1 M/s Crystal Corp Protection Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3930/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Crystal Corp Protection Ltd. Vs ACIT B-95, Wazirpur, Industrial Area, Circle-5(2) Delhi- PIN: 110052 New Delhi (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCJ3574E (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. S. S. Nagar, CA Respondent by Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.07.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the asses…

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…r from the facts of the case that the warranty provision was provided by the assessee on a scientific basis based on past experience, historical trend and satisfies the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. 314 ITR 62 (SC) and IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 31 of 31 therefore the disallowance of warranty provision cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. 49. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (PADMAVATHY S) Vice President Bangalore, Dated: 30.0…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 294/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos. 292, 293 & 294/Hyd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Prabhat Agri Biotech Income Tax, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AABCP8801C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, AR राज" व "वारा/Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार ख/Date of hearing: 22/06/202…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 293/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos. 292, 293 & 294/Hyd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Prabhat Agri Biotech Income Tax, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AABCP8801C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, AR राज" व "वारा/Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार ख/Date of hearing: 22/06/202…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 292/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos. 292, 293 & 294/Hyd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Prabhat Agri Biotech Income Tax, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN No. AABCP8801C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee by: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, AR राज" व "वारा/Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार ख/Date of hearing: 22/06/202…

Eberspeacher Suetrack Bus Climate Control Systems India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4509/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &
Section 143(3)

…Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC). Perusal of the order passed by DRP-1, Delhi shows that the panel has discussed the applicability of three conditions laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred (M/s Rotork Controls India (p) Ltd V/s CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC), as to whether the three conditions are satisfied in the case of appellant or not. The panel has concluded that none of the three conditions in the case of appellant are satisfied, so as to allow to the appellant, the warranty expenses on provisional basis. 8. Relevant portion of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of appellant for AY 201…

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

…ntenance is an integral part of the Concession granted to 38 I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2021 M/s Andhra Expressway Ltd. the appellant and is similar to the provisions for warranty. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd.(314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble SC has treated the provision for contingent liabilities as allowable expense only on the fulfilment of certain conditions. It mentioned that the provision for a contingent liability can be allowed as an expense only if it is ascertained according to a reasonable scientific method which uses historical experience and statis…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hbl Power Systems Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…) and pleaded that their claim for warranty expenditure of Rs. 662.21 Lakhs may be considered in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) and also Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 7. Ld. CIT(A) examined the working given for making the provision for warranty of Rs. 6,62,20,850/- and as a matter of fact, returned a finding that such working was consistently followed by the assessee for about ten years, and the assessee was earlier disallowing the provision for warranty and claiming the expenses on actual basis in the…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Next Education India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1413/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri S. Raghunathan, ARFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…oubtedly, the provision for warranty is allowable if it is based on the scientific basis as provided by Page 6 of 17 ITA No 1413 of 2019 Next Education India (P) Ltd Hyderabad the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT [314 ITR 62] (SC), wherein it was held as under: “14. In this case the High Court has principally gone by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. (supra). That was the case of gratuity. For the assessment year 1974-75 the assessee-company sought to deduct a sum of Rs. 18,37,727 towards the amount of gratuity payable to its em…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Pace Power Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1963/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha, H., CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…ant (Rs.7,35,30,657/-) and the amount finally settled with clients (Rs.7,35,10,728/-) itself goes on to prove validity of appellant's estimations.” 8. The CIT(Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62) wherein it was held that in case of warranties the sale price itself includes the price of warranty and therefore any expenditure incurred or any provision made for warranty is deductible. The loss on sale of onerous contract as claimed by the appellant is akin to warranty. He also relied on other judicial pronouncements and deleted the disallowa…

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/s. NIKE India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Ground and First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : AABCN 9612 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice…

Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R
Section 143(3)

…IT(TP)A No.452/Bang/2017 Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ferns Icon, Level 2 Doddenakundi Village Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Deputy Commissioner of Marathahalli Post Vs. Income-tax K.R. Puram, Hobli Circle 4(1)(1) Bangalore 560 037 Bangalore PAN NO :AABCI3372H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R. : Date of Heari…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1110/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit Vs Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Cirlce-11(1) Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi Near Modi Mill, New Delhi Pan-Aabch3162L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] DCIT vs Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Cirlce-11(1) Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi Near Modi Mill, New Delhi PAN-AABCH3162L APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O No. 21/Del/2021 [In ITA No. 1110/Del/2018] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-III, Cirlce-11(2) Near Modi Mill, New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AABCH3162L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR…

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(7)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…case (supra) has in all the prior years decided this issue in favour of the assessee by allowing the deduction of provision for warranty. It is also the case of the assessee that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC) allowed the provision for warranty as a permissible deduction on the basis of certain parameters fulfilled by the assessee in that case. Since the parameters/ conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls case (supra) are fulfilled by the assessee the ratio of the said case squarely applies to the case of the assessee.…