TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rued as soon as the first purchase was made. The only passing of discount to the customers is only at second purchase. The assessee is legally bound to pass the reward or discount to the customer as soon as the first purchase was made and if the customer does not make claim for such a discount, the accrual liability not stopped, the assessee is bound to honour its claim. Being so, the quantification of such liability is already determined. There is no dispute regarding quantification of such liability. Case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [ 2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Hence, this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal in ITA Nos.2706, 2705, 2704/Mds/2016 is as under : 2. The CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 47,86,462/- made under the head of bonus redemption expenses. The CIT(Appeals) failed to see the fact that the liability incurred by the assessee was in the nature of contingent liability and fully dependent upon the uncertain future visit and option of the customers and is not a know liability. 3. After hearing the parties, we are opinion that similar issue came for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own group cases in ITA No.1093/Mds/2016 to 1099/Mds/2016 etc., dated 8.2.2017, wherein the Tribunal vide para 21.1. 22 held as under:- 21.1 After considering the finding of the AO and the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 100/- and above, he is eligible for discount of 1% in the next purchase. The floated scheme is as follows:- i) That the minute a customer makes a purchase of ₹ 100 and above is eligible for discount of 1% of the same from the next purchase from the next day. ii) Such a facility can be availed by the customer in any time in future. As per the above scheme, the assessee made a claim of ₹ 1,99,32,784/-. In our opinion, there is an accrual of liability in the accounting year under consideration, though the liability may have to be quantified and discharged in a subsequent assessment year. In other words, incurring of liability is a certain, the same is not a contingent liability. But it is a liability in praesenti, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability is already determined. There is no dispute regarding quantification of such liability. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (supra) is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Hence, this ground of Revenue stands dismissed. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s group cases in ITA Nos.1093 to 1099/Mds/2016, we dismiss this ground of appeal. Accordingly, ITA Nos.2706, 2705 2704/Mds/2017 are dismissed. 4. The common ground raised by the assessees in ITA Nos.2471 2469/Mds/2016 is as under : 2.1 The CIT(Appeals) err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ld. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A) placing earlier order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1093 to 1099/Mds/2016 confirmed the order of the Learned Assessing Officer. Against the order of ld. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that this issue came for consideration before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1093 to 1099/Mds/2016 etc. dated 08.02.2017, wherein the Tribunal following its earlier order in assessee s own group in ITA Nos.1769 to 1772/Mds/2014 etc. held as under : We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee has valued the unsold stock by discounting purchase price at fixed percenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
