TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of diesel, petrol and gas generators. For the Assessment Year 201314, Petitioner had filed return of income, which was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer; (b) In the return, Petitioner had presented the computation of income under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") as well as under provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (for short "MAT"). Petitioner in the normal computation, had claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1.89 Crores towards provision for warranty, which was included in the miscellaneous expenses. In the computation for MAT provisions, however, Petitioner had added back said sum of Rs. 1.89 Crores on the ground that, same was unascertained liability; (c) The return of income filed by the Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....89,72,000/and also revealed from the record that the above provision was made first time and for the period of four years. Further, computation of book profit revealed that the assessee while computing book profit made addition of Rs. 1,89,72,000/towards unascertained liability on account provision for warranty. 3. Thus, from the above it transpires that the above provision was unascertained and contingent in nature. As the provisions for warranty was unascertained liability it was required to be disallowed and added to total income. However, the assessee has not disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The amount which is provided for or kept apart cannot be held to be expenditure, actually incurred and consequently ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same ground which would be based on a mere change of opinion. In this context, Counsel relied on the observations made in the judgment dated 11th December, 2018 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.854 of 2016 , in which the Court had stated as under: " The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 has held that even post the amendments in Section 147 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1989, the concept of change of opinion continues to apply. Learned Counsel for the Revenue however, contended that the Assessing Officer had not specifically raised queries in respect of proposed disallowane as recorded in the reasons. In our opinion, as long as certain claim made by the assessee was examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferent. 6. What emerges from the record is that, the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, has referred to only one element, arising out of the Assessee's return namely the Assessee's claim of expenditure of Rs. 1.89 Crores towards provisions for warranty liability. The Assessing Officer points out that said liability was unascertained, contingent liability and, therefore, not allowable as an expenditure. The Assessing Officer drew inspiration from the declaration of the Petitioner for the purpose of MAT computation that the liability was unascertained. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, argued that liability may be unascertained but not necessarily contingent. The Assessee's treatment of such liability for MAT computa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement with Educomp, our company is liable to give five year free after sales service at respective schools in Assam. Accordingly, our company is liable to give four extra years of free service against normal period of one year. To meet the extended warranty period and probable warranty expenses to be incurred for Educomp, we charged generator sets at higher price to Educomp Solutions Ltd. The generator which was priced at Rs. 28,500/in normal course of business, was sold at Rs. 46,636/to Educomp Solutions Ltd. That excess amount charged per genset was on account of additional 4 year warranty. .... .... .... .... .... 6. .... .... .... .... 7. Miscellaneous Expenses Miscellaneous Expenses for the FY 1213 are Rs. 2,06,91,882.25....