TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an admitted fact that this issue was covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Tribunal in the earlier years and the only reason assigned by the ld. Pr. CIT for setting aside the assessment order is that the AO has not seen the history of the case and the issue has not been settled. Thus, it cannot be held that the assessment order is either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, on this issue also the order of the Pr. CIT cannot be sustained. The order of the ld. Pr. CIT is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 4022/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2022 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Ajay Vohra , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n assessee's own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08, such provision has been allowed and has been held to be not taxable by the Tribunal and the ld. Pr. CIT has only set aside the issue on the ground that the Department has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the order of the Tribunal for the said assessment year; and again similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09. His only point of setting aside is that the Assessing Officer should have seen the history of the case that this issue is not yet settled. Thus, he submitted that there is no error committed by the Assessing Officer nor the order of the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations:- (a). Provision for Warranty: The issue at hand regarding allowability of provision for service warranty as expenditure. On merits too, assessee has strongly contended that the provisions for service warranty was not taxable, being not a contingent liability and that the, method of determining the provision was the same each year. Assessee has submitted that in its own case for A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 such a provision was allowed as expenditure by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi. From the records it is seen that the department has filed appeal u/s. 260A against the order of the Hon'ble ITAT for the said assessment years. It is also seen that for the subsequent A.Y. - 2008-09 to A.Y. 2011-12, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
