Court Upholds Percentage Completion Method for Real Estate Revenue

The court upheld the adoption of the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) for revenue recognition in real estate projects, disallowing certain fees paid to authorities and directing the assessment of rental income and hire charges under specific categories. The CIT(A) and AO decisions were affirmed, dismissing appeals from both parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Adoption of Percentage Completion Method (PCM) for revenue recognition.
2. Disallowance of compounding fee paid to Bangalore Mahanagar Palika (BMP).
3. Disallowance of amounts paid to the Department of Company Affairs and as entry tax compounding fees.
4. Deletion of the addition made on protective basis as income from 'other sources'.
5. Assessment of rentals from Forum Mall and Eva Mall as 'income from profits and gains from business/profession'.
6. Assessment of hire charges in respect of fit-outs as income from 'other sources'.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adoption of Percentage Completion Method (PCM) for Revenue Recognition:

The assessee adopted the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) for its real estate developments. Out of 25 projects, 7 were completed, and 18 were at various stages of completion. The assessee did not recognize revenue for 8 projects that were less than 30% complete and offered tax for only 5 projects under PCM. The Assessing Officer (AO) required clarification on why revenue was not recognized for the remaining 5 projects that were more than 30% complete.

The AO concluded that the assessee could transfer all significant risks and rewards to the buyers upon entering into agreements, even if the legal ownership of the land was not transferred. The AO added an income of Rs. 8,92,90,995 for the five projects under JDA to the assessee's income.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee must follow the percentage completion method as per AS-7 for construction contracts. The assessee's contention that revenue could only be recognized after completing the project was not accepted.

2. Disallowance of Compounding Fee Paid to Bangalore Mahanagar Palika (BMP):

The AO disallowed the compounding fee of Rs. 43.96 lakhs paid by the assessee to BMP, citing that the expenditure was for an offense or an act prohibited by law. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, referencing the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, which prohibits deductions for expenses incurred for any purpose that is an offense or prohibited by law.

3. Disallowance of Amounts Paid to the Department of Company Affairs and as Entry Tax Compounding Fees:

The AO disallowed Rs. 51,585 paid to the Department of Company Affairs and as entry tax compounding fees, citing similar reasoning as the compounding fee paid to BMP. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove that these expenses did not fall under the purview of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Act.

4. Deletion of the Addition Made on Protective Basis as Income from 'Other Sources':

The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 7.33 crores made on a protective basis as income from 'other sources'. The AO had added this amount based on the premise that the assessee should have followed PCM for recognizing revenues in the previous assessment year. The CIT(A) noted that the Tribunal had directed the AO to accept the project completion method for the previous year, and therefore, the income should be assessed on a substantive basis in the current year.

5. Assessment of Rentals from Forum Mall and Eva Mall as 'Income from Profits and Gains from Business/Profession':

The CIT(A) directed the AO to assess the rental income from Forum Mall and Eva Mall as 'income from profits and gains from business/profession'. The Tribunal had previously held that the income from the mall should be assessed under the head 'Income from business'. The CIT(A) followed this precedent.

6. Assessment of Hire Charges in Respect of Fit-outs as Income from 'Other Sources':

The CIT(A) directed the AO to assess the hire charges in respect of fit-outs as income from 'other sources'. The Tribunal had previously held that the receipts from letting out fit-outs should be taxed under 'income from other sources' and allowed the assessee to claim depreciation.

Conclusion:

Both the assessee's appeal and the revenue's appeal were dismissed, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) and the AO on all issues.

---