AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the detailed finding of the Assessing Officer while considering the assessment order dated 26/12/2023, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue,
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,46,66,27-4/- made on account of unsubstantiated provision for warranty expenses without verifying whether the conditions laid down in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62. SC) were satisfied?
3.The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and or deleted or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case in ITR 17/1997 order dated 12.12.2007. A copy of the order is placed on record.
Referring to the said order Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that whether the provision to meet cost for fulfilment of warranty obligations under the contract with customers, as a contingent liability or not came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case and the Hon’ble High Court following its decision in CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (278 ITR 337) decided the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case we find that issue is squarely covered by the decision in assessee’s own case wherein the Hon’ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Further on perusal of the order of the Hon’ble High Court we observed that the Ld. Standing Counsel for the revenue had stated before the Hon’ble High Court that the issue in appeal is covered by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus, respectfully following the said decision we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.