TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee/company which is engaged in the marketing and distribution of software systems and storage devices, computer consultancy and solutions, had filed its return of income for the relevant assessment years. During the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the income tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short), the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has created provision for warranty during the relevant assessment years and the expenditure claimed was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Commissioner which were allowed by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Wipro GE Medical Systems (80 TTJ 455). Being aggrieved, revenue had preferred t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the past history or actual expenditure incurred by the Appellant on account of such warranty whereas the Honorable High Court had remanded the issue for a limited point on whether the requirements stated in Para-10 of the decision of Rotork Controls India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [(2009) 314 ITR 62] are fulfilled. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the assessing officer rather than deciding the case as per the law, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Whether the remanding of the matter now to the assessing officer is beyond the scope of the remand ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for further inquiry regarding the provision made by the assessee for warranty, whether is based on the past history or actual expenditure incurred by the assessee, contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e., ITA Nos.448/2008 and connected matters. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have exercised its discretion in verifying any figures regarding the provision, being the last fact finding authority. The order passed by the Tribunal goes beyond the scope of remand made by this Court which is untenable and calls for interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue Sri Aravind would justify the order passed by the Tribunal. It is contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord, the Tribunal ought to have arrived at a conclusion rather than further remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer that too, after giving a positive finding that the methodology adopted by the assessee is on a scientific and reasonable basis. 9. We observe that no proper reasoning has been given by the Tribunal for exercising the power of remand. The directions issued by this Court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal is not considered by the Tribunal in the true spirit. It was the obligation cast on the Tribunal to examine the case of the Assessee in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rotork Controls' case (supra) and to come to a decision. But, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer is in disregard....