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 affirms CIT(A)'s decision on warranty provision, emphasizing scientific estimation basis (A)</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle- 14, Pune Versus Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd.</h3> DCIT, Circle- 14, Pune Versus Kenersys India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:- Disallowance of provision for warranty of Rs. 75,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee, engaged in the business of wind turbine generators, declared a loss of Rs. 17,24,43,810. The Assessing Officer disallowed a warranty provision of Rs. 75,00,000 as the assessee failed to provide supporting documents. The AO relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rotork Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC).2. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted evidence showing the warranty provision was only 1.43% of sales. The assessee detailed the warranty provision year-wise and its appropriation towards claims. The CIT(A) analyzed the data and allowed the appeal, considering the warranty provision's actual expenditure basis. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to support the assessee's calculation method.3. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal reviewed the data related to the warranty provision for financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13. It noted the close correlation between the provision created and utilized in the relevant years. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning fair and reasonable, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the scientific estimation basis for warranty provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the grounds raised by the Revenue did not warrant interference, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the warranty provision of Rs. 75,00,000 based on the assessee's calculation method and actual expenditure, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 