9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised by submitting that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself (ITA no.2027 and 3931/Mum./2009, for the assessment year 2005-06. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Mrs. N.V. Nadkarni, learned D.R. 2.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above factual matrix, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 27th April 2011 for ready reference:- "2 In grounds of appeal no.1, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the provision for trade guarantees of Rs. 1,41,92,093/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Relying on a couple of decisions, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs. 1,41,92,093/- being in the nature of contingent liability. After deducting actual expenditure of Rs. 64,33,230/- incurred by the assessee he disallowed an amount of Rs. 77,58,863/-. 3 In appeal, the CIT(A) following the order of his predecessor for Assessment Year 1991-92 upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and held that provision of trade guarantee debited in the books of account is not an ascertained liability and hence it does not qualify for deduction. He, however, directed the Assessing Officer to give deduction to the assessee of the actual expenditure incurred in respect of trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee. However, he submitted that quantification is required to be examined at the level of the Assessing Officer since the period of warranty is not known. He, accordingly submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for quantification. 6 We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the paper book 5 ITA No.2027/Mum/2009 filed on behalf of the assessee. After hearing both the parties, we find the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the consistent decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee's own case from Assessment Years 1990-91 till 2001-02 and Assessment Year 2004-05. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned D.R. fairly agreed with the argument of the assessee. In view of the above, since we have decided the issue of trade guarantee in favour of the assessee, therefore, this ground is automatically disposed off in favour of the assessee. 4. The next ground pertains to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for future years. The crux of arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly confirmed the disallowance claimed u/s 80IA of the Act, because no claim was made by the assessee, therefore, there is no question of fulfilling the conditions required under the section. The learned D.R. consented that no claim was made by the assessee. 4.1 In view of the assertio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the same. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The totality of facts clearly indicates that the assessee is in the business of generation of power. Broadly, the power is generated either through water (electricity) or generator set and also through wind (wind energy / electricity). The assessee is manufacturing generators through which the power is generated and such generators are used by the customers. Thus, we are not in agreement with the observation of the Assessing Officer that power generation is not the regular business of the assessee because the assessee is manufacturing generators w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., order dated 8th February 2001, 2001-(IT2)-GJX-0075-BOM. The learned D.R. contended that the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order is correct. 6.2 We have perused the record and considered the rival submissions and found, as agreed by the learned Counsel for the assessee also, that actuarial valuation report was not filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we remand this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim. This ground is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
