1 22 itxa 91.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION k INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.91 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax – I .. Appellant. Vs. Kirloskar Copeland Limited .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1 The following two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal which read thus: 1) Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in directing the A.O. to allow the liability on account of warranty claimed as business expenditure in accordance with its order dated 21/06/2005 in the case of DCIT, SR-1, Pune vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd., Pune in I.T.A. No.255/PN/1993, specially when there was no liability and it is incapable to being quantified with any degree of certainty. 2 22 itxa 91.07.doc 2) Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in directing the A.O. to exclude sales tax and excise duty from total turnover while computing deduction u/s 80HHC? 2 As regard to the first question is concerned, the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he should examine the issue afresh in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, SR-1, Pune Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Pune in ITA No.255/PN/1993 for Assessment Year 1989-90. Since the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain this question. However, while passing the fresh order the Assessing Officer shall take into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3 As regard to second question is concerned, the said question is answered against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works reported in 290 ITR 667 (SC) against the Revenue. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. 3 22 itxa 91.07.doc 4 Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)