Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Jay Bee Industries on 28 June, 2010

Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH.

                                             ITA No.152 of 2001
                                            and connected appeals

                                     Date of decision:   28.6.2010

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala
                                                   -----Appellants

                               Vs.

     M/s Jay Bee Industries, Patiala

                                                   ----Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL


Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the
          appellants.


Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

This order will dispose of ITA Nos.152 to 155 of 2001 and 189 of 2003. All the said appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common question of law to the following effect:-

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that provision of warranty for repairs/replacement is an existing liability at the time of sale and is allowable as a deduction?"

ITA Nos.152 to 155 of 2001 were admitted on account of pendency of ITA Nos.163 to 166 of 1998 and were ordered to ITA No.152 of 2001 and connected appeals 2 be heard alongwith the said cases, which also related to the same assessee and involved the same question, while ITA No.189 of 2003 was ordered to be heard alongwith ITA No.152 of 2001. We find from the office report that ITR Nos.163 to 166 of 1998 stand decided against the revenue by order dated 20.9.2007, upholding the view that provision for warranty was existing liability at the time of sale and was allowable as a deduction. In view of earlier judgment of this Court on the issue, question of law proposed can no longer be held to be a substantial question of law.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.



                                           (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
                                                   Judge


June 28, 2010                               (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
'gs'                                               Judge