TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the business of manufacturing and trading of consumer electronics and home appliances. For the Assessment Year under dispute the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring loss of Rs. 9,23,56,352/- under the normal provisions of the Act. However, the assessee declared book profit of Rs. 8,27,48,465/- u/s.115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticing that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 6,03,255/- towards interest on TDS and TCS was of the view such payment being of penal nature is not allowable as per section 40(a)(ii). He further held that as per the said provision such expenditure is not for the purpose of business alleging that the assessee did not justify the deduction claimed by furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority in deleting the addition. 7. In Ground no.2 department has challenged deletion of addition made of Rs. 54,93,131/- on account of disallowance of provision for warranty expenses. Briefly the facts are during the assessment proceedings, on examining the audited accounts, cash flow statement and auditor‟s report, the AO found that the assessee has made provisions for contingent liability amounting to Rs. 54,93,131/- towards provision for warranty and maintenance expenses. Therefore the AO called upon the assessee to furnish details of the provision made and also to explain why the deduction claimed being of contingent nature should not be disallowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as decided the issue in favour of the assessee in AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, deleted the addition made by the AO. 8. The learned DR relied on the observations of the AO. The learned AR supporting the finding of the first appellate authority submitted that in assessee‟s own case for earlier Assessment Years the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. Further he submitted in case of other group companies of the assessee the Tribunal has allowed provision made on account of warranty and maintenance expenses. In this context he drew our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Century Appliances Pvt Ltd in ITA No.5152/Mum/2015 dated 16.06.2017 and DCIT vs. M/s Kail Ltd in ITA No.4415/Mum/2012 and Ors d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged the deletion of the addition made of Rs. 1,47,922/- u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Briefly the facts are during the assessment proceedings the AO noticing that the assessee has made long term investments which could give rise to exempt income by the way of dividend called upon the assessee to explain why expenditure attributable for making investment should not be disallowed u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Though the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance, however, the AO rejecting the submissions of the assessee disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,47,922/- u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D. Assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority. Learned CIT(A) having found that the assessee had sufficient....