TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on-122001, do hereby solemnly affirm that; 1. That, I am working as General Manager -Taxation of M/s Bata India Ltd, entrusted by the company to look after the tax matters of the company. 2. That, M/s Bata India Ltd is an Income Tax assessee having PAN No. AABCB1043Q. 3. That, income tax assessment, for the assessment year 2009-10, was completed on 30.04.2013, under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act, by the deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle 2(1), Kolkata. 4. That, I.T. Dept has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in ITA No. 1844/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10; 5. The said appeal has been preferred by the 1.1. Dept, against an order dated 23 February, 2017, passed by the (IT (A)- 22, Kolkata. The appeal papers i.e. Form No. 36 & Ground of Appeal was received by M/s Bata India Ltd on 14th September, 2017 at Kolkata office. Accordingly, the cross appeal was required to be filled by 13.10.2017. However, the cross appeal is being filed on 1 December 2017. Accordingly, there has been a delay of 49 days, in filing of the appeal. 6. The reasons for the delay in filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debited leave liability, but the amount was not paid during the year. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,23,55,207/- as Royalty Payment, when the payment of Royalty could have been given the status of a capital expenditure owing to its enduring nature. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the upward Adjustment of Rs. 9,75,00,000/- by the TPO, without acknowledging that manual book and other technical documents demonstrated by the Assessee had been developed in previous year and no new services had been performed in A.Y. 2009-10. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs 70,201/-, without considering that the river bank embankment and renovation could not be dealt with under that block of assets. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,42,78,000/- on account of warranty, without going into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was not allegedly paid during the year. The Ld. DR relied on the case of Exide Industries Limited reported in 116 taxmann.com 378 (SC). (c) Regarding Ground No. 3 which pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,23,55,207/-, as Royalty payment, by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR argued that such payment as Royalty deserves to be treated as a capital expenditure since it resulted in enduring benefit to the assessee. (d) Regarding Ground No. 4, the Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,75,00,000/-, which was worked out by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) with respect to advisory services provided by M/s Global Footware Services, Singapore, which is an Associated Enterprise (AE) of the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that the TPO's working for determining an Arm's Length Price (ALP) resulted in "Nil" payment on the alleged ground that no benefit of services was actually received by the assessee. The Ld. DR stressed that in the absence of services being provided the action of Ld. AO in adding the impugned amount was justified. In this regard, the Ld. DR also relied on written submission dated 11.08.2021. On the basis of such wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said amount, aggregating to Rs. Rs.451,22,468, was disallowed in the earlier years and was credited to profit and loss account on writing back of the liability in the relevant previous year, and in order to correctly compute the taxable income of the assessee and to avoid double taxation the said amount was then claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the disallowance made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Ground No. 2: The assessee claimed deduction for provision for leave encashment of Rs.70,01,000 in the return of income on the ground that the provision for leave encashment was in respect of employees who continue to be in service and have not resigned during the year. Accordingly, the said amount was "not payable" during the year. Accordingly, it was claimed that the provision for leave encashment "not payable" by the assessee to its employees during the year does not fall within the ambit of section 43B(f) of the Act. It was fairly mentioned that the primary contention has since been decided against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Exide Industries Ltd in SLP(Civil).CC 12060/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of footwear. In accordance with the industry practices, the products of the company are sold in domestic as well as export market with a warranty replacement of 25% to 100% for replacement within 75 days of the purchase. The warranty claim covers the expenses related to repairing, cost of shoes sold which are covered by warranty period of 75 days from date of sale and the amount of provision is determined on the basis of standard basis of average expenses incurred in the past. At the end of every financial year, the assessee, as per the mercantile method of accounting consistently followed, provides for unexpired warranty liability in respect of sales made until the end of such year, on a rational and scientific basis of past experience, based on the certificate provided by the actuarial valuer. During the relevant previous year, the assessee made a provision for warranty of Rs 3,12,40,000 and paid warranty claims aggregating to Rs. 1,54,55,000. Ground No. 7: It was averred that the provision for warranty was made by the assessee for relevant assessment year on a reasonable and scientific basis as worked out by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Tribunal are enclosed page 223 to 231 of paperbook. It is also material to note that in the immediate preceding year i.e. AY 2007-08 the assessee had made similar royalty payments. The assessment for AY 2007-08 was framed u/s 143(3). In that year the Assessing Officer himself did not dispute that the expenditure on royalty payments was revenue in nature and no disallowance was made. Accordingly, even the AO, in the immediate preceding year, accepted that the royalty payments were not capital in nature and allowable as deduction from the profits of the business. The Id Counsel submits that during the relevant year it made royalty payments to the very same parties pursuant to same agreements or arrangements prevailing earlier. In this factual background, following the orders of the ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 & 2006-07 and the Department's own stand in AY 2007- 08, we note that the disallowance of royalty of Rs. 3,87,80,185/- made by the Assessing Officer in AY 2008-09deserves to be deleted. Now, we deal with submissions of ld Counsel based on the consistency permeate through more than one assessment year, if the Revenue has accepted a particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s finding has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 371 of 2016 in the assessee's own case as under: "As to whether any services were received by an assessee from an entity against the price paid by such assessee to the relevant entity, is essentially question of fact. Further, it is evident from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on December 30,2011 that similar objections of the TΡΟ had not found favour with the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of other assessment years and the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and by this Court. If one were to delve into the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it would be evident that the Commissioner adopted the reasoning found in previous orders on the similar issue passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal questioned the basis of the opinion rendered by the TPO that such services were rendered uniformity to all associate concerns by the concerned associate of the assessee in the present case. The Appellate Tribunal found that the TPO had not rendered a finding that such services were rendered by the ent....