(T.C.(A)No.163 of 2003 is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, dated 22. 2003 in ITA No.468/(Mds)/95. T.C.(A)No.1 of 2004 is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, dated 7. 2003 in ITA No.874/Mds/1996. T.C.(A)No.94 of 2004 and 95 of 2004 are against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench, dated 24. 2003 respectively in ITA Nos.276 and 1244/Mds/95. T.C.(A)No.229 of 2004 is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench, dated 30.9.2003 in ITA No.1285/Mds/2001. T.C.(A) No.565 of 2004 is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, dated 10.02.2004, in ITA No.1091/Mds/97. T.C.(A)No.2203 of 2006 is against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench, dated 310. 2005 in ITA No.1317/Mds/2001.) Common Judgment: (Chitra Venkataraman, J.)

All these appeals are clubbed together, for passing a common order, considering the identity of the issues raised therein.

2. The common question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the warranty provision is an allowable deduction and