Special Leave Petition Dismissed: 225-Day Delay & Insufficient Justification Lead to Rejection on Merits.Provision for warranty in excess of 2.14 percent of sales - assessee had not made the provision on a scientific basis - As decided by HC 2023 (4) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] provisions made between A.Y. 2007-08 and 2017-18. Appellant is right in his submission that the total utilization for the corresponding A.Y.s 2008-09 to 2017-18 is 95.5% of the total provision. Therefore, as held in Rotork Case, 2009 (5) TMI 16 - Supreme Court the estimate made by assessee is reliable and robust and th... ... ... Issues involved: Delay in filing special leave petition, dismissal of special leave petition on grounds of delay and merits, disposal of pending application(s).

Upon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court noted a delay of 225 days in filing the special leave petition and expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided for seeking condonation of the delay. The Court dismissed the special leave petition based on the delay as well as on merits, citing that identical matters had already been dismissed.

Furthermore, the Court ordered that any pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of. Provision for warranty in excess of 2.14 percent of sales - assessee had not made the provision on a scientific basis - As decided by HC 2023 (4) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] provisions made between A.Y. 2007-08 and 2017-18. Appellant is right in his submission that the total utilization for the corresponding A.Y.s 2008-09 to 2017-18 is 95.5% of the total provision. Therefore, as held in Rotork Case, 2009 (5) TMI 16 - Supreme Court the estimate made by assessee is reliable and robust and the orders passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) and the Tribunal are unsustainable in law and these appeals by the assessee merit consideration HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 225 days in filing the special leave petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered seeking condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. We also note that since identical matters have already been dismissed, we dismiss this special leave petition both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Versus APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Income Tax
2024 (5) TMI 1181 - SC Order - TMI
SUPREME COURT - SC
Dated:- 7-3-2024
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 5282/2024 - -
Income Tax
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE For the Petitioner : Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. ORDER UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following. 1. There is a delay of 225 days in filing the special leave petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered seeking condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. 2. We also note that since identical matters have already been dismissed, we dismiss this special leave petition both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders