9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of warranty provision of Rs. 1,67,32,832 2.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 1,67,32,832. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, provision for warranty amounting to Rs. 1,67,32,832/- is to be fully allowed as /deduction as claimed in the return of income. 2.2. The learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that, as there was a shift in the basis of warranty claim from payment basis to provision basis, the difference between cumulative provision and cumulative payment pertaining to earlier years was claimed during the year under consideration in order to ensure uniformity. 2.3. The learned AO and CIT(A) have err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.03.2015 found the order u/s 143(3) erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the AO had allowed an amount of Rs. 1,67,32,832 claimed as warranty provision by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 which otherwise related to earlier years. Accordingly, the CIT set aside the order u/s 143(3) dated 16.10.2019. The AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 28.09.2015 making addition of Rs. 1,67,32,832 on account of claim of excess warranty provision. 4. While computing the income, the AO made the following computation:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. Total Income as per order dated 16/10/2012 462,90,59,697 Add: Claim of excess warranty provision 1,67,32,832 Revised Total Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,59,697, wherein he has not given the benefit of TP adjustment which was reduced to Rs. 14,18,47,658 vide assessment order giving effect to ITAT order for AY 2008-09 on 20.1.2016. However, since the order giving effect to ITAT order for AY 2008-09 was not passed at the time of passing the order giving effect to 263 order on 28.9.2015, the AO had not considered it. However, this was noticed by the CIT(Appeals) and he has given a direction to reduce the original TP adjustment from Rs. 97,82,11,238 to Rs. 14,18,47,658. In other words, the AO is directed by the CIT(A) to start the computation of total income as mentioned in Order Giving Effect to the ITAT order dated 20.1.2016. 8. With regard to disallowance of warranty provision of Rs. 1,67,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier provision for warranty during this AY 2008-09 was directed to be disallowed by the CIT(Appeals) in his order u/s. 263 dated 26.3.2015. The same was complied by the AO in his Order Giving Effect to the 263 order passed us/. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 28.9.2015. Now the contention of the ld. AR is that if it is disallowed in AY 2008-09, the same should be allowed in AY 2010-11 on the ground that it has offered the amount in AY 2011-12. 9. The contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee had not furnished requisite details before the lower authorities for claiming such deduction in AY 2010-11. 10. Admittedly, this deduction cannot be allowed in the assessment year under consideration as warranty provision was allowed on actual basis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
