Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether provision for warranty was allowable as a deduction as an ascertained liability. (ii) Whether proportionate interest on borrowed capital was disallowable on the ground that funds were diverted to group concerns.
Issue (i): Whether provision for warranty was allowable as a deduction as an ascertained liability.
Analysis: The provision for warranty was made on a scientific and actuarial basis and had a direct nexus with the assessee's warranty obligation. The liability was considered capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty, and the fact that payment would arise in future did not make it unallowable.
Conclusion: The provision for warranty was allowable as deduction, and the deletion of the addition was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether proportionate interest on borrowed capital was disallowable on the ground that funds were diverted to group concerns.
Analysis: The borrowed ECB funds were obtained for business purposes with RBI approval. The expenditure incurred on behalf of group companies was treated as having been incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, and no material was brought on record to establish diversion of borrowed money for non-business use or a direct nexus warranting disallowance.
Conclusion: The interest disallowance was rightly deleted, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Both additions deleted by the appellate authority were sustained, and the Revenue's appeal failed in entirety.
Ratio Decidendi: A reasonably estimated warranty obligation based on scientific valuation is an allowable business liability, and interest on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed absent proof of diversion or lack of commercial expediency.