IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. : 839/Ahd/2023 & 94/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sahajanand Laser Assistant Technology Limited Vs Commissioner of

30, GIDC Electronics Income Tax, Estate, Sector-26, Circle-4(1)(1), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B The ACIT, Vs Sahajanand Laser Gandhinagar Circle, Technology Ltd Gandhi Nagar E-30,GIDC, Sector-

26, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382028 PAN: AAGCS1983B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee Represented: Ms. Arti N Shah, A.R.

Revenue Represented: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 11-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-03-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

These cross appeals are filed by the Assessee and Revenue as against appellate order dated 21-08-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) rws 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed its Return of Income for the Asst. year 2014-15 on 28-11-2014 declaring Nil income. Regular assessment u/s.143[3] was made on 29-12-2016 determining the income under normal provisions at Rs.7,38,27,158/= and under book profit u/s.115JB at Rs.15,76,68,533/=. This assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore Ld.PCIT passed revision order dated 13-02-2019 with direction to the AO to make proper inquiry in respect of the provisions of warranty expenses of Rs.34,48,532/= claimed by the assessee. The AO in the giving effect order made addition of Rs.34,48,532/= since the assessee created only a provision for warranty expenses and disallowed the same. The AO also made addition of Rs.34,48,532/= under the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act and demanded tax thereon.

3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT[A] who partly allowed the appeal by deleting the addition on account of warranty expenses under the normal provisions of the Act but confirmed the addition of Rs.34,48,532/= under the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act by observing as follows:

“6.3 On perusal of computation of income, it is evident that the appellant added the provision for warranty expenses amounting to Rs.34,48,532/- and further reduced the warranty expenses of Rs. 16,10,280/- which were incurred during the year under consideration. The argument of the appellant is also verified from the ITR for AY 2014-15. Thus, the provision for warranty expenses of Rs 34,48,532/- debited to the profit and loss account don't disturb at ariving to the total income of the applicant under normal provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So far as the addition of provision for warranty expenses in the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act is concerned, the appellant had not added the same while calculating book profit. In view of the above discussion, the AO is unjustified in adding the provision for warranty expenses of Rs.34.48,532/- to the total income of the appellant calculated under normal provision of the Act. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of provision for warranty expenses of Rs.34,48,532/- under normal provision of the Act and sustain this addition while calculating the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.”

4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.839/Ahd/2023 read as under:

“1. The Learned C.LT.(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by adding warranty expenses of Rs.34,48,532/- to book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 though the same was an ascertained liability and not liable to be added back in calculating profit u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961