Jharkhand High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited on 11 May, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2019
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi- --- Appellant
Versus
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi --- Respondent
With
Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2019
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi- --- Appellant
Versus
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi --- Respondent
With
Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2019
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi- --- Appellant
Versus
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
---
Through : Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate [all appeals] For the Respondent : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate [all appeals]
----
08 /11.05.2022 Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2019 This appeal shall be heard on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount under the head of "Provision of Warranty Expenses" can be allowed as expenditure to the business income of the Respondent Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent Assessee has complied with all the conditions laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2009) 13 SCC 283, to be entitled to the amount of "Provision of Warranty Expenses" as an expenditure to the business income of the respondent Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Ld. ITAT in the Impugned Judgment that "the appellant company had made a reasonable estimate of claiming at 0.5% of sales based on past expenses and technical estimates" is perverse and not based on any material evidence?2.
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Impugned Judgment passed by Ld. ITAT is perverse?Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2019
This appeal shall be heard on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount under the head of "Provision for Leave Assistance", Provision for Liquidated Damages" and Miscellaneous Provision"
respectively can be allowed as expenditure to the business income of the Respondent Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2009) 13 SCC 283 would apply to the case of Respondent Assessee so far as his claim for entitlement of expenditure towards business income under "Provision for Leave Travel Assistance", "Provision for Liquidated Damages" and "Miscellaneous Provision" is concerned under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the expenditure made on sales promotion is allowable under Section 40(a) despite the fact that the assesse failed to discharge its onus of providing evidences in support of TDS made on the same?
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Impugned Judgment passed by Ld. ITAT is perverse?Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2019
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount under the head of "Provision of Warranty Expenses" can be allowed as expenditure to the business income of the Respondent Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent Assessee has complied with all the conditions laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Rotork Controls India Private Limited v. CIT 3. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 283, to be entitled the amount of "Provision of Warranty Expenses" as an expenditure to the business income of the respondent Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the Ld. ITAT in the Impugned Judgment that "Based on its past experience and technical estimate for warranty, expenses are provided in account" and also the finding that 'the liability so accrued was estimated scientifically' are perverse and not based on any material evidence?
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Impugned Judgment passed by Ld. ITAT is perverse? Call for the Lower Court Records of I.T.A. No. 125/Ran/2017, I.T.A. No. 95/Ran/2017 and I.T.A. No. 223/Ran/2016 from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J) jk/