TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2009-10. Since issues involved in all these Cross appeals as well as assessee's appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together, disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. First we take up ITA No.1480/Mds./14(Assessee's Appeal: 2004-05) 2. In this appeal, only one ground for our consideration is with regard to sustenance of disallowance of the claim for deduction of Rs. 27,62,934/- being the provision for warranty quantified at 2% of the total sales in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The facts of the issue are that the AO disallowed the provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 27,62,934/- as it is not an allowable expenditure, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Rotark Controls India Ltd., reported in 293 ITR 311. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee provides specific percentage 2% on total sales and the same is written back in two years, in equal installments. Further, Ld.CIT(A) observed that the decision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal No.1480/Mds/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2403/Mds./14(Assessee's appeal) & 2385/Mds./2014(Revenue's appeal) for A.Y 2008-09 These are cross appeals. First we take Assessee's appeal. 6. In assessee's appeal, Ground Nos.2 to 4 is with regard to disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act r.w.Rule 8D. At the time of hearing, the ld.A.R has not pressed these grounds. Accordingly, these grounds No.2, 3 & 4 stand dismissed as not pressed. 7. The next ground in this appeal is with regard to disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss. 8. The facts of the issue are that the exchange loss on amount lying in EEFC account was Rs. 5,09,335/-. The AO disallowed the foreign exchange fluctuation loss as notional since the assessee company has chosen to keep a portion of the receipt of export in EEFC account based on RBI guidelines. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee company maintained accounts regularly on mercantile system and following accounting standards prescribed by ICAI, on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 323 ITR 130(Del.), disallowed at Rs. 13,65,327/- u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the same issue was decided in favour of assessee in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 by CIT(A)-1, Madurai and Ld.CIT(A) following the decision taken on this issue in the above CIT(A)'s order, Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 10.2. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. A similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.1707 & 1782/Mds./2012 for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 27.04.2016 wherein held as follows:- "27. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. With regard to the issue as to whether the TDS has to be deducted or not when the commission payment made to the overseas agents, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 53,62,227/-. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11.2 After hearing both the parties, this issue came for consideration before the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs East Coast Constructions and Ind. Ltd, 283 ITR 297(Mad.) wherein held that:- "the assessee was entitled to receive the retention money after completion of the contract. On the date of the bills, no enforceable liability had accrued or arisen. When the assessee had no right to receive the money by virtue of the contract between the parties and the assessee also had no right to enforce payment, it could not be said that the right to receive payment of the remaining 10 per cent of the value of job had accrued." Accordingly, this ground of Revenue stands dismissed. 11.3 In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No.2385/Mds./2014 is dismissed. ITA No.807/Mds./2013 (Revenue's appeal) (A.Y 2009-10) 12. The first issue in Revenue's appeal is with regard to deletion of disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of commission paid to M/s.Tricel Ltd., and M/s.English Boiler, without deducting TDS. 12.1 As discussed earlier the same issue in para -10 of this order ....