9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing adjustment on account of AMP expenses. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, it was admitted by the ld. AR that the issue in this case is fully covered by the Special Bench order in the case of LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2013) 140 ITD 41 (Del) (SB). The ld. AR contended that similar direction be given to the AO/TPO for deciding this issue afresh and restricting the transfer pricing adjustment, if any, in the light of the Special Bench decision, after excluding the selling expenses out of the amount considered by the AO under AMP expenses. The ld. DR was fair enough to concede the position stated on behalf of the assessee. 4. It is observed that the Special Bench in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was entitled to claim that the deduction on account of provision for warranty be allowed in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Indian Steel and Wire Products VS. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal) for opposing the admission of additional ground by contending that all the material facts necessary for adjudication of this ground were not available before the AO and further this ground does not arise out of the impugned order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed during the year and the closing balance of Rs. 8.32 crore was allowed to be carried forward. The assessee's computation of income is available at page 503 of the paper book from which it can be seen that a sum of Rs. 8.70 crore was added to the net adjusted profit taken as the starting point for computation of total income with the remarks 'Provision for warranty created during the year' and, thereafter, deduction was claimed for a sum of Rs. 1.43 crore with the remarks 'Warranties used during the year.' It shows that the assessee added back the amount of provision debited to the Profit & Loss Account and claimed deduction for warranties actually used during the year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision for warranties which is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (supra), we direct the AO to consider and examine the assessee's claim in this regard on the touchstone of the prescription given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that very case. Before jumping to any conclusion for allowing deduction towards provision for warranty for this year at Rs. 8.70 crore, the AO should keep in mind that this amount of provision should not lead to double deduction, firstly at the time of creation of provision in the current year and then at the time of actual use of the amount in subsequent years. In other words, the AO would examine the claim for deduction of provision for warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
