TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on job work charges & warranty provision deductions</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Exclusion of 90% of job work charges from profits of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC.2. Allowance of provision for warranty as a deduction.3. Deduction computed under section 80HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB.Detailed Analysis:1. Exclusion of 90% of Job Work Charges:The Revenue contested the CIT (A)'s decision to exclude 90% of the net job work charges from the profits of the business while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. The assessee argued that the job work charges should be included in the profits of the business. The CIT (A) relied on a Supreme Court judgment and held that 90% of the net job work charges should be excluded. This issue had previously been resolved in favor of the assessee by the High Court, which upheld the exclusion of 90% of the net job work charges. The Tribunal followed the High Court's decision and found no error in the CIT (A)'s order, rejecting both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on this issue.2. Allowance of Provision for Warranty:The Revenue argued that the provision for warranty, amounting to Rs. 16,09,453/-, was a contingent liability and should not be allowed as a deduction. The CIT (A) allowed the deduction by following the Supreme Court's judgment in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT. The Revenue contended that there was no historical data or scientific study to justify the provision. The assessee provided a detailed note explaining the circumstances and historical trends that justified the provision. The Tribunal found that the CIT (A) had correctly interpreted the Supreme Court's judgment, which allowed provisioning based on a sensible analysis of historical trends. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's additional ground of appeal.3. Deduction Computed Under Section 80HHC While Computing Book Profit Under Section 115JB:The assessee argued that the deduction computed under section 80HHC should be allowed while computing the book profit under section 115JB, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. CIT. The Supreme Court clarified that the total amount of deduction computed under section 80HHC should be deducted from the book profit under section 115JB. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine this aspect and compute the deduction accordingly, following the Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection on this issue.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, following the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court on the respective issues. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 14th November 2014.
TaxTMI 