Ita/23/2017 Of M/S.apollo Tyres Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 26 DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 23 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT(TP)A No.189/COCH/2016 OFI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LIMITED3RD FLOOR,AREEKAL MANSION,NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION,PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682036(PAN: ) BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSSRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSSRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIRSRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGESRI.ISAAC THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1(1),ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682018. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.P.K.R.MENONSR.COUNSEL GOITAXESSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTSRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.08.2021,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No. 23/2017 S.V. Bhatti, J. J U D G M E N T Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr Joseph Markos and learned Standing Counsel Mr Christopher Abraham for parties. 2.M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd Kochi/Assessee is theappellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. 2.1 The assessee assails the order dated 10.01.2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) CochinBench in IT(TP)A No.189/Coch/2016. The issues relate to thereturn filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions oflaw: “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theITAT erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,453,586(Rs.5,020,000 - Rs.1.566,414) being year-end provision for payment ofcommission as an unascertained liability? I.T.A. No. 23/2017 b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thereis any material or evidence on record to justify the finding of theAppellate Tribunal that the sum of Rs.3,453,586 cannot be allowed asdeduction for the assessment year in question? 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that the substantial questions of law raised in the instant appealare similar or identical to substantial question no.(c) in theappeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.249/2015. On 26.08.2021,in ITA No.249/2015, question no.(c) was answered in favour ofthe Revenue and against the assessee. By adopting the reasonsstated therein the question is answered in favour of theRevenue and against the assessee, and the observations madetherein shall apply to the instant Assessment Year as well. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE I.T.A. No. 23/2017 APPENDIX OF ITA 23/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, KOCHI. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE CTRUE COPY OF DIRECTIONS DATED 23.12.2015 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS PANEL ANNEXURE DTRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE ETRUE COPY OF DIRECTIONS AND 20.06.2016 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS PANEL ANNEXURE FTRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANNEXURE GCERTIFIED COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN10.01.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN