TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, Adv. ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are directed against separate but identical orders of the ld.CIT(A) dated 15.12.2010 pertaining to the AYs 2004-05 and dt. 20.5.2011 for Assessment Year 2007-08. As the issues arising in both the appeals are common for the sake of convenience, they are heard together and disposed off by way ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....₹ 1,12,53,000/- on account of warranty and other expenses. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the identical addition was made in Assessment Year 2000-01 and the appeal against the same was decided in favour of the appellant company vide order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi vide her order dt. 18.7.2003 in Appeal no.47/2002-03. The department had preferre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi High Court where the matter is still pending. 4.1. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the facts on record. I have also perused the order of the Tribunal referred to above. It is noticed that the Tribunal confirmed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi who had deleted the identical addition made in the appellant's own case in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the estimation of liability can be termed as reasonable. It was also the case of the Ld.Counsel that the balance amount has been offered for taxation as provision of s.41(1) will become applicable in respect of the balance amount. Subject to verification of the offering of the balance amount for taxation, it is held that the liability was an accrued liability. In case the balance amount has been ....