9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he DRP u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 04.12.2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under. The respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of trading of power tool products like drills, grinders, saws, hammers etc. Return for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 disclosing income of Rs. 1,59,19,880. Against said return of income, assessment was completed after issuing scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2). 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company entered into international transactions with its AE towards purchase of traded goods to the extent of Rs. 34,83,16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as trade discount, sales discount, warranty expenses and packing expenses cannot be treated as Advertising and Marketing Promotion expenditure. The assessee company also contested the addition on account of provision for warranty as the same was allowable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 6. The Hon'ble DRP while passing the order u/s. 144C of the Act has stated that the contention of the assessee company that the selling expenses cannot be included in the AMP expenditure cannot be accepted as the assessee had failed to furnish specific information or details in respect of the claim and therefore rejected the objections. ITA 967/Bang/2015 7. Subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in invoking section 154 of the Income tax Act, to decide an issue where more than one view is possible and which cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent from record. 4. For those and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in so fat as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed. 5, The appellant craves leave to add, after, amend and / or delete any of the grounds mentioned above." 9. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently contested that the Hon'ble DRP ought not to have exercised jurisdiction u/s. 154 as it is only error of judgment and accordingly he prayed the order passed u/s. 154 may be quashed. 10. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that provision for warranty is only in the nature of contingent liability and therefore cannot be allowed as deduction and provision was not based on any reliable estimate. Therefore he prayed that the directions of the Hon'ble DRP may be quashed. 13. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has explained the method of accounting followed by the assessee company for warranty expenditure and that the provision is based on the past history and submitted that law laid down in Rotork Controls Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. During the course of hearing of the appeal, a chart showing the provisions created ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
