Assessee is  engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods. It made provision for warranty expenses in relation to a contract with Chhattisgarh Government for supply, installation, and commissioning of solar photovoltaic (SPV) irrigation pumps, which included a five-year (60 months) on-site warranty. Assessing Officer held  that since it was first year of operation for SPV pumps, warranty provision was deemed a contingent liability under AS-29, as it lacked a reliable estimate based on past data. He further concluded that warranty provision was an ad-hoc estimate without a scientific basis. He thus, classified provision as a contingent liability and disallowed. CIT(A) up held the order of the AO.  Tribunal held that   assessee calculated provision for warranty expenses based on discounted cash flow (DCF) method, which considered inflow from solar project, five-year warranty period and discount rate of 14 per cent. Provision for warranty expenses made by assessee in a  in a scientifically sound and consistent method which complied with AS-29.  Disallowance is deleted.(AY. 2017-18)