Binding Supreme Court precedent on customer advances and warranty provisions left no substantial question of law.

Additions for advance from customers and for provision for warranty were treated as covered by binding Supreme Court authority, including Taparia Tools and Rotork Controls, so the assessee's treatment was accepted on both issues. The note records that the proposed questions of law were already settled in favour of the assessee, and therefore no substantial question of law arose for consideration. On that basis, no interference was called for with the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the addition made on account of advance from customers was liable to be sustained as income in the assessment year under consideration; (ii) whether the addition made on account of provision for warranty was liable to be sustained as a contingent and adhoc liability.

Issue (i): whether the addition made on account of advance from customers was liable to be sustained as income in the assessment year under consideration.

Analysis: The question was treated as covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Taparia Tools Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the addition made on account of provision for warranty was liable to be sustained as a contingent and adhoc liability.

Analysis: The question was treated as covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Tribunal's order, and the appeal was closed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proposed questions of law are already covered by binding Supreme Court authority in favour of the assessee, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

---