https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449830 The ITAT Rajkot ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. First, regarding provision for performance guarantee/warranty, the AO disallowed the provision claiming it was used to evade tax, but CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that provisions made in one year were reversed in the next year by offering as income, and the assessee consistently accounted for opening balances. Second, on disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D, ITAT confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition since no dividend income was earned by the assessee. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449830 The ITAT Rajkot ruled in favor of the assessee on two issues. First, regarding provision for performance guarantee/warranty, the AO disallowed the provision claiming it was used to evade tax, but CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that provisions made in one year were reversed in the next year by offering as income, and the assessee consistently accounted for opening balances. Second, on disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D, ITAT confirmed CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition since no dividend income was earned by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449830