sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Eaton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)
 Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
  Shantivijay Jewels Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Meta Plast Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Shantivijay Jewels Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Amod Shivlal Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
  Pr CIT vs. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 ITO (Exemptions) vs. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (ITAT Chandigarh)

September, 12th 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.108/2012 & 109/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Date of decision: 21st August, 2013 WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Ms. Rani Kiyala & Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Amol Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Having heard counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed:"Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing actual warranty expenses of Rs.12,53,441/- and Rs.48,54,522/on account of provision for warranty?" 2. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments as a

short issue is involved and is covered by an earlier decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Woodward Governor India Limited, 2010 (321) ITR 147 (Del).
ITA No. 108/2012 Page 1 of 5


The aforesaid decision in Woodward Governor India Limited

(supra), which pertains to Assessment Year 2004-05, accepts the legal position that provision for warranty can be allowed as an expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). The other question, i.e., how much or the quantum of expenditure, which should be allowed, it has been held, depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The working of the figure or quantum of the provision for warranty has to be rational and scientific. 4. Similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in

Commissioner of Income Tax versus Whirlpool of India Limited, 2011 (242) CTR (Del) 245 wherein it has been observed that provision for warranty should be based on actuarial valuation with reference to the products sold during the year. This amount can be treated as expenditure under Section 37(1) on the principle of matching. Further, depending upon the past history, the quantum of provision for warranty can be increased or decreased. However, the provision, which is

allowed towards warranty claim, should be based upon scientific study and actuarial basis. 5. In the present year the provision for warranty and the warranty

expenses debited to the profit and loss account were as under:-

ITA No. 108/2012

Page 2 of 5

Particulars Opening balance as on 1.4.2004 Add; Provision created during the year Less: Expenses charged off out of provision Closing balance as on 31.3.2005 Warranty Expenses debited to P&L A/c Actual warranty expenses Warranty provided during the year Amount debited to P&L A/c

Amount in Rs. 31,35,150/48,54,522/27,31,167/52,58,505/-



It is clear from the aforesaid chart that the assessee had incurred

total expense of Rs.39,84,608/- (Rs.27,31,167/- + Rs.12,53,441/-). However, provision for warranty expenses was made for

Rs.48,54,522/-. In other words, the assessee in the profit and loss account had debited an amount of Rs.61,07,963/- (Rs.48,54,522/- + Rs.12,53,441/-). The tribunal in paragraph 26 of the impugned order has noticed that the appellant had made provision for warranty on sales for a period of eighteen months for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and they had applied rate of 1.10% towards provision for warranty claims. There appears to be confusion in the order of the tribunal in paragraphs 26 to 28 on the computation aspect/claim. Tribunal has remanded the question to the Assessing Officer after making some observations.
ITA No. 108/2012 Page 3 of 5


The appellant has filed before us chart showing details of

provision for warranty as claimed by them for Assessment Year 200506 onwards and also a step chart to justify the provision for warranty expenses. 8. As we perceive, the real question and issue is whether the

provision of warranty as claimed is based upon scientific and rational basis or not. Provision for warranty on the basis of principle for matching can be allowed but the amount claimed should have some rational and scientific basis and it cannot be on mere ipsi dixit. This is clear from the two decisions in Woodward Governor India Limited (supra) and Whirlpool of India Limited (supra). In the last decision it has been held that provision for warranty has to be on actuarial valuation. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, we feel that the matter requires

in-depth and proper factual examination by the adjudicating authorities and were inclined to remand the matter to the tribunal to examine the said issue keeping in view the figures, charts etc. and after ascertaining the basis, period etc. However, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer, as a detailed scrutiny of accounts and figures would be required. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that he has no objection. Tribunal has also

ITA No. 108/2012

Page 4 of 5

remitted the question of computation to the Assessing Officer. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, we answer the question of law

mentioned above partly in favour of the appellant-assessee but with an order of remand to the Assessing Officer, who will examine the provision for warranty as claimed, including the actual warranty expenses incurred during the year and then determine and decide the quantum of the claim. The Assessing Officer while making the said computation will not be influenced by the observations made by the tribunal in the impugned order and will independently apply his mind. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.



ITA No. 108/2012

Page 5 of 5

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Desktop Application Development Outsourcing Desktop Application Development Offshore Desk

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions