AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent expenditure. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of provision for warranty in excess of actual warranty claims being the same as unascertained liability. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 3. The Appellant, M/s. Eicher Motors Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') in ITA No.2268/Del/2014 by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- XIII, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-XIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of notional expenses of Rs. 26,97,608/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act allegedly relating to dividend income. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-XIII, New Delhi has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of normal expenses of Rs. 26,97,608/- u/s 14A while computing book profit u/s 115JB of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce in view of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'). Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there is neither any interest nor any administrative expenses relating to the dividend income, as such no disallowance u/s 14A is required. AO has disagreed with the submissions raised by the assessee and worked out disallowance under Rule 8D to the tune of Rs. 318,84,938/-. However, ld. CIT (A), in view of the revised working of the average investments and assets, worked out the disallowance of interest and administrative expenses and restricted the same to Rs. 26,97,608/- u/s 14A of the Act. 8. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by filing the appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue as well as assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present cross appeals. 9. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUND NO.1 of ITA NO.2228/DEL/2014 10. The ld. DR for the revenue challenging the impugned order contended that since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16. In the instant case, assessee company claimed to have incurred R&D expenditure to bring down the noise level by redesigning intake and exhaust system; to reduce environmental pollution on account of unburnt gases by combustion chamber redesign, after treatment of exhaust system (e.g. hot tube engine management system); carburetor redesign, engine management system, throttle sensor. Undisputedly, after examining the objectives of the R&D facilities used by the assessee company at Chennai, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) accorded approval u/s 35(2AB) in respect of Chennai centre of the assessee company first time on 11.08.2005, renewed from time to time on the basis of physical inspection and remained intact till 04.10.2012. Order of approval of in-house research and development facilities u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, in form no.3CM dated 18.12.2008 renewed up to 04.12.2012 are available at pages 54 to 60 of the paper book. Bare perusal of the orders of approval u/s 35(2AB) passed by DSIR go to prove that the approval has been accorded to the assessee company to carry out in-house R&D facilities at Chennai centre only when it has fulfilled of the conditions la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/-. 32. Ld. D.R. relied upon the order passed by Assessing Officer. However, Ld. A.R. relied upon the order passed by L. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee only claimed regarding deduction of amount earmarked for provision for warranty, has been allowed by the Revenue during the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and no appeal has been filed by the Department against Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision delivered by Income tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in assessee's own case entitled DCIT Vs M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 3560/Del12008 order dated 18.09.2009. Ld. A.R. also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (S.C.). The ratio of judgment (supra) is that estimated provisions for warranty are allowable for deduction. Operative part of the judgement (supra) is reproduced below for facility of reference: "Held, reversing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, that the valve actuators, manufactured by the assessee, were sophisticated goods and statistical data indicated that every year some of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for any ascertained liability and allowed the provision for warranty as deduction. Following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement (supra), decision of coordinate bench in the assessee's own case, we find that there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings returned by Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the ascertained liability as allowable expenditure u/s 3 7( 1) of the Act. So, ground No.3 is determined in favour of the assessee." 21. Following the order passed by the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 (supra), by following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls (supra), we find no illegality or perversity in the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- by the ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order. So, ground no.2 is determined against the revenue. GROUND NO.1 & 2 OF ITA NO.2268/DEL/2014 22. Undisputedly, assessee company has earned dividend income of Rs. 15,82,84,580/- from the investments held in its various subsidiary companies and mutual funds claimed to be exempted u/s 10(33 / 34) of the Act. AO, by invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A read with Rule 8D disallowed an amount of Rs. 3,1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in judgment cited as Hero Cycles Ltd. (supra) also held that disallowance u/s 14A can only be made if the AO establishes proximate nexus of expenditure with exempt income. ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of SIL Investment Ltd. (supra) also held that the AO cannot make disallowance u/s 14A without brining any evidence on record to establish that any expenditure had been incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. 25. In the light of the settled proposition laid down in the judgments (supra) discussed in the preceding para, when we examine the disallowance worked out by the AO under Rule 8D, reproduced hereunder, the AO has not brought on record any evidence to establish if any expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income :- Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. A Employees Cost Basic Salary 7,085,205 House Rent Allowance 3,095,189 Other taxable Allowance 11,658,649 Leave Encashment 11,745 Bonus/Rewards 26,942 Provident Fund Contributions 12,649 Leave Travel Allowance 657,545 Transport/Vehicle Expenses 246,796 Medical Reimbursements 449,792 ....