Ita/71/2017 Of M/S.apollo Tyers Limited v. The Deputy 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. 71 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 35/2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: M/S.APOLLO TYERS LIMITED3RD FLOOR, AREEKAL MANSION, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036, (PAN AAACA69990Q) BY ADVS.V.ABRAHAM MARKOSABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOSP.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAMHARAN THOMAS GEORGEISAAC THOMASJERIE RAMESHRACHEL ABRAHAMJOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) RESPONDENT/S: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. BY ADVS.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXCHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, 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.71/2017 -2- 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 24.07.2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal) CochinBench in ITA No.35/Coch/2017. The issues relate to the returnfiled by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Theappeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe ITAT erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,11,08,106/- being year-end provision for payment ofcommission as an unascertained liability? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,there is any material or evidence on record to justify the I.T.A. No.71/2017 3. finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sum of Rs.1.11.08,106/- cannot be allowed as deduction for theassessment year in question? 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. jjj Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE I.T.A. No.71/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE B ANNEXURE C ANNEXURE D ANNEXURE E APPENDIX OF ITA 71/2017 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, KOCHI TRUE COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRUE COPY OF DIRECTIONS DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL TRUE COPY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.01.2017 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CERTIFIED COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI