https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191321 Provision for warranty was treated as a business provision, not a contingent liability, because earlier Delhi High Court decisions had already rejected the Revenue's objection and the Revenue did not distinguish those precedents; the provision basis was also not shown to be irrational, so no substantial question of law arose and the challenge failed in limine. AMC receipts were bifurcated across financial years in line with the assessee's consistent accounting practice, and the Revenue did not show any substantial legal issue arising from that treatment, so that challenge also failed in limine. en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:11:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191321 Provision for warranty was treated as a business provision, not a contingent liability, because earlier Delhi High Court decisions had already rejected the Revenue's objection and the Revenue did not distinguish those precedents; the provision basis was also not shown to be irrational, so no substantial question of law arose and the challenge failed in limine. AMC receipts were bifurcated across financial years in line with the assessee's consistent accounting practice, and the Revenue did not show any substantial legal issue arising from that treatment, so that challenge also failed in limine. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191321