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>Tax Appeal Partially Allowed; Tribunal Directs Reconsideration on Warranty Issue</h1> <h3>Add. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi Versus M/s Infres Methodex Pvt. Limited</h3> Add. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi Versus M/s Infres Methodex Pvt. Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of provision for warranty2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961Issue 1: Disallowance of Provision for WarrantyThe case involved the Department appealing against the deletion of an addition of &8377; 4,69,39,754/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for warranty. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as the estimates made by the assessee were deemed unreliable. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the provision was made based on past trends and experience. However, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned decision for accepting the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961Regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the assessee had earned dividend income during the year and claimed exemption under sections 10(34) & 10(35) of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed a disallowance under Rule 8D at &8377; 2,73,665/-. The Ld. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to &8377; 1,01,352/- based on the average value of investments. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not establish a direct nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exempt income earned. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly computed the disallowance by excluding investments not related to the dividend income. As the assessee did not challenge the disallowance amount, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.In conclusion, the appeal of the Department was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal remanding the issue of provision for warranty back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh consideration and upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
