2015 (2) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No.1302 of 2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides brought to our notice decision dated 26.11.2014 in Tax Appeal No.1302 of 2008 together with the cognate appeal being Tax Appeal No.966 of 2007 and allied matters whereby, the said appeal is disposed of. Hence, as the said Tax Appeal No.1302 of 2008 is already disposed of, it may not be required to be heard with the present matter. 4. We have heard Mr.Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and Mr.B.S. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Assessee. As such, the facts on record show that the A.O. did not allow the amount of Rs. 9,68,740/- made under the head of provisions made for warranties. The matter was carried in appeal before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... total sales recorded in the books of account. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee having consistently followed mercantile system of accounting provision for contingent or unaccrued liability is not allowable as deduction as the expenditure allowable should be one which pertains to an actual and existing liability. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue therefore preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both....