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 367,154 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

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)

…ition in the same financial year in consonance with the matching concept. The assessee placed 3 F.Harley & Co. Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2011-12 reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) wherein the following three conditions were laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for recognition of expenses :- (i) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of past event ; (ii) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle obligation ; and (iii) a reliable estimate can be made of amount of the obligation – I…

The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd., Raisen

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…o rationale behind the warranty provisions made in the books of accounts. The assessee company has nowhere proved that sale price included warranty expenses. The AO observed that the assessee company has relied on the case of Rotork Control (P) India Ltd. 314 ITR 62(SC)/(2009-TIOL-64-SC) but as held in the said case this provision can be allowed if made after scientific method for its quantification. The AO has relied in the case of Metal Box vs. Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) to contend that contingent liability cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, in CIT vs. Kalinga Tubes 218 ITR 164(SC) it was held that onl…

M/S Andritz Hydro Private Limited (Earlier Known As V A Tech Hydro Indai Pvt. Ltd.), Mandideep vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…o rationale behind the warranty provisions made in the books of accounts. The assessee company has nowhere proved that sale price included warranty expenses. The AO observed that the assessee company has relied on the case of Rotork Control (P) India Ltd. 314 ITR 62(SC)/(2009-TIOL-64-SC) but as held in the said case this provision can be allowed if made after scientific method for its quantification. The AO has relied in the case of Metal Box vs. Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) to contend that contingent liability cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, in CIT vs. Kalinga Tubes 218 ITR 164(SC) it was held that onl…

The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Andritz Hydro Pvt. Ltd., Raisen

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…o rationale behind the warranty provisions made in the books of accounts. The assessee company has nowhere proved that sale price included warranty expenses. The AO observed that the assessee company has relied on the case of Rotork Control (P) India Ltd. 314 ITR 62(SC)/(2009-TIOL-64-SC) but as held in the said case this provision can be allowed if made after scientific method for its quantification. The AO has relied in the case of Metal Box vs. Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) to contend that contingent liability cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, in CIT vs. Kalinga Tubes 218 ITR 164(SC) it was held that onl…

M/S. Andritz Hydro Private Limited (Earlier Known As Va Tech Hydro India Private Limited), Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…o rationale behind the warranty provisions made in the books of accounts. The assessee company has nowhere proved that sale price included warranty expenses. The AO observed that the assessee company has relied on the case of Rotork Control (P) India Ltd. 314 ITR 62(SC)/(2009-TIOL-64-SC) but as held in the said case this provision can be allowed if made after scientific method for its quantification. The AO has relied in the case of Metal Box vs. Workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) to contend that contingent liability cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, in CIT vs. Kalinga Tubes 218 ITR 164(SC) it was held that onl…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. DCIT(OSD), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACP2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT(OSD), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02…

M/S Cummins Technologies India Private Limited, Dewas vs. The ACIT Circle 1(1), Ujjain

In the result, ITA No. 258/Ind/2015 is allowed and ITA

ITA 232/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. Nos.258/Ind/2015 : A.Y.2007-08 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. Nos.232/Ind/2016 : A.Y.2010-11 M/S Cummins Technologies India Pvt.Ltd Dewas Pan – Aabct – 2018B :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 1(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Ujjain Shri Girish Agrawal "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 10.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143

…ccounted on accrual basis and the provisions by applying match concept. Here in this case, the assessee is claiming warranty expenses which are allowable expenditure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Control India Private Limited; 314 ITR 62. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the warranty expenses are allowable and in that case, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the provision is made on structure policy of last 8 quarters of warranty cost and last quarter sales were used for quantifying the provisions. The assessee is following these p…

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 5(2), Mumbai vs. C.A. India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 17/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna and Shri Ravi SawnnaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ केकेकेके” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे एवं शि"जीत डे शि"जीत डे, "याियक शि"जीत डे "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.17/Mum/2012 : िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण व…

M/S. Religare Commodities Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the disallowance made by the Ld

ITA 2283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishireligare Commodities Ltd, Acit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-15(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacf8356R (Appellant) (Respondent) Religare Commodities Ltd, Dcit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-15(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacf8356R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 28Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…isely possible at the time of incurring the liability would not make an ascertained liability a contingent. 9.3.4 Almost to the similar effect, there is another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62/180 Taxman 422. In that case, the assessee-company was engaged in selling certain products. At the time of sale, the company provided a standard warranty that in the event of certain part becoming defective within 12 months from the date of commissioning or 18 months from the date of dispatch, whichever is earlier, the company would rectify or rep…

D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2625/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…so it was unscientific. The AR in his written submission has pointed out that a complete statistical data was provided to the AO regarding replacement of items in earlier years. The AR has also submitted a case law of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where there was warranty obligation such obligation was a part of the sale price and stood attached to the sale price of the product. It was held that a warranty obligation is a present obligation as a result of past events resulting in an outflow of resources and a reliable estimate could be…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

ITA 2126/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…so it was unscientific. The AR in his written submission has pointed out that a complete statistical data was provided to the AO regarding replacement of items in earlier years. The AR has also submitted a case law of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (314 ITR 62) (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where there was warranty obligation such obligation was a part of the sale price and stood attached to the sale price of the product. It was held that a warranty obligation is a present obligation as a result of past events resulting in an outflow of resources and a reliable estimate could be…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2268/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…nch 'B', New Delhi in assessee's own case entitled DCIT Vs M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 3560/Del12008 order dated 18.09.2009. Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (S.C.). The ratio of judgment (supra) is that estimated provisions for warranty are allowable for deduction. Operative part of the judgement (supra) is reproduced below for facility of reference: "Held, reversing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, that the valve actuators, manufactured by the assessee, were sophisticated goods and statistical…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2228/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…nch 'B', New Delhi in assessee's own case entitled DCIT Vs M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 3560/Del12008 order dated 18.09.2009. Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (S.C.). The ratio of judgment (supra) is that estimated provisions for warranty are allowable for deduction. Operative part of the judgement (supra) is reproduced below for facility of reference: "Held, reversing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, that the valve actuators, manufactured by the assessee, were sophisticated goods and statistical…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…for retrospective increase in price of materials which was already settled up to the end of the year end had, thus, accrued during the year under consideration, was an allowable business expenditure. The Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Control versus CIT 314 ITR 62 has held that the provision made for liabilities accrued upto the end of the year, is an allowable expenditure in accordance with the Mercantile System of Accounting. In that view of the matter, the action of the assessing officer in disallowing the aforesaid provision on the ground of being not arising from the terms and conditions of the purchas…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 730/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 730/KOL/2015 A.Y: 2010-11 Allahabad Bank Vs. Principal Commissioner PAN: AABCC 2903N of Income-tax, Kolkata-2 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri Pijush Dey, FCA, Ld. AR for the assessee Shri Abhijit Datta, JCIT, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 26-07-2016 Date of pronouncement : 19-10-2016 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 25-03-2015 passed by the Prl. Commissioner…

Exide Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 712/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43BSection 43D

…available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, this issue is covered in principle in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (Pvt.) Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 314 ITR 62, 4 Exide Industries Limited wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the provision of warranty is allowable as deduction if the following conditions are satisfied:- (i) An Enterprise has a present obligation as a result of past events; (ii) It is probable that an out-flow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; (iii) A relia…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Zinser Textiles Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4851/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rushabh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…d that the assessee had not proved the provision of warranty expenses based on any scientific method in such circumstances, the assessee cannot place reliance on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC) as the facts are totally distinguishable. Even otherwise the assessee has to pass through the triple test as declared therein in order to succeed in his claim on provision for warranty. In the absence of any such finding in its favour satisfying the said triple test, the assessee can not rely on the said decision of the apex court. We do not…

M/S Bairavi Properties & Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S . Sundar Rajan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’ BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No.203/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Bairavi Properties & Construction Pvt. Ltd., NO.1432, 10th Main, 6th Cross, Kodihalli, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri S . Sundar Rajan, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 08.09.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This…

Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2834/CHNY/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under similar facts in the case of CIT v. Rotark Controls India Pvt. Ltd, 293 ITR 311 (Mad). However, the decision has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case, i.e Rotark Control India Ltd.v.CIT 314 ITR 62(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that provision for warranty is an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. Following the decision of the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the ground of the assessee. Against this, the Revenue has assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 40.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2827/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35D(2)Section 35D(2)(c)

…of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court under similar facts in the case of CIT v. Rotark Controls India Pvt. Ltd, 293 ITR 311 (Mad). However, the decision has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case, i.e Rotark Control India Ltd.v.CIT 314 ITR 62(SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that provision for warranty is an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. Following the decision of the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the ground of the assessee. Against this, the Revenue has assailed an appeal before Tribunal. 40.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused…