TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 20,50,000/- being provision for warranty. 2.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24/12/2008 were that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing of Rubber Injection Moulding Machine. 2.2. As per Profit & Loss Account, a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- was debited under the head "Provision for Warranty". The same was disallowed by Assessing Officer primarily on the ground that the same was unascertained and non-crystalized liability. The matter was carried before the first appellate authority. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has appreciated the facts of the case that the said provision was ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was decided in favour of assessee. Now, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard both the sides. From the side of the Revenue, Mr. G.S. Souryavanshi and from the side of the Assessee Ld. A.R. Mr. Manish J. Shah appeared and they have respectively supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(Appeals). Once it was an admitted factual position that the "provision of warranty" for the year under consideration was based upon the past experience and the historical trend of the business, therefore, in our considered opinion, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Earth Movers Vs. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC), decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax in the Assessment year 1. 35,781 2,87,844 Advance Licence incentive Because of change in Government policy, licence became obsolete and written off 2005-06 2006-07 2. 82,424 4,10,576 Advance Licence incentive Licence validity expired 2003-04 2004-05 5.2. The only reason assigned by the Assessing Officer for disallowance of the claim was that the assessee had failed to establish the steps taken for the recovery of the debts. He has disallowed the total amount written-off of Rs. 11,22,035/- which was challenged before the Learned CIT(Appeals). When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has decided in assessee's favour by assigning following reasons:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffered in the past for the assessment years noted therein. In our opinion, based upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC), the Learned CIT(Appeals) has rightly appreciated the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the records and allow the write - off of the claimed amount. We find no fallacy in the said directions of the Learned CIT(Appeals), hence, hereby affirm the same. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Ground No.3 reads as under:- 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,92,296/- being provision of tax on Royalty. 7.1. The issue of disallow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is not entitled to claim deduction U/s. 80IB on this amount. 9.1. While working the deduction u/s.80IB, the Assessing Officer has excluded service charges of Rs. 12,69,221/- along with other charges, such as, installation and commission, duty draw back, etc. In respect of service charges, it was submitted that the assessee was required to provide service to the customer. In the past, on identical lines, the disallowance was made and for Assessment Year 2004-05, Respected ITAT "B" Bench Ahmedabad in assessee's own case bearing ITA No. 2522/Ahd/2007 vide an order dated 31/08/2007 has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, but directed to compute the net amount of disallowance instead of the gross amount. The relevant observat....