IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
   ITA 304/2013 and CM 10305/2013 (delay)  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I  ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Advocate (appearance not given) 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 BOSE CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD   ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Advocate (appearance not given) 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    12.07.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 This appeal filed by the Revenue which pertains to the Assessment 
 Year 2006-07 raises two questions.  The first questions relates to 
 provision for warranty which as per the Revenue is a contingent 
 liability.  The issue is covered by several decisions of the Delhi High 
 Court against the Revenue namely CIT vs. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. 
 (2008) 171 Taxman 13 (Del); CIT Vs. Sony India (P) Ltd. (2007) 160 Taxman 
 397 (Del) and CIT Vs. M/s. Vinitec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR 
 369 (Delhi). 
 . 
 We fail to understand why the Revenue has raised this issue without 
 referring to the said judgments.  We also note that the quantum of 
 provisions for warranty @0.5% of the annual sales is not disputed or 
 challenged on the ground that it is not based on past data and is 
 irrational. 
 . 
 The second issue raised by the Revenue pertains to AMC charges which 
 were received by the Assessee but have been bifurcated or divided in case 
 the AMC period extended and went beyond the financial year in question. 
 The respondent/assessee has been consistently following the said practice 
 and the amount involved is Rs.7,45,000/-. 
 . 
 . 
 In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue 
 notice in the present appeal as no substantial question of law is 
 involved. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J 
 . 
 JULY 12, 2013 
 . 
 st 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 18 
 .