TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal upheld on revenue recognition & accounting standards in income determination</h1> <h3>Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (1) Guntur Versus M/s JOCIL Limited Dokiparru Medikonduru Mandal Guntur And M/s JOCIL Limited Dokiparru Medikonduru Mandal Guntur Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (1) Guntur</h3> Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (1) Guntur Versus M/s JOCIL Limited Dokiparru Medikonduru Mandal Guntur And M/s JOCIL Limited Dokiparru ... Issues Involved:1. Discrepancy between purchase bills and receipts admitted by the assessee.2. Treatment of income related to power division.3. Application of mercantile system of accounting.4. Revenue recognition and adjustments.5. Appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO).6. Decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT-A).7. Admissibility of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Discrepancy between purchase bills and receiptsThe appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the difference between purchase bills and receipts admitted by the assessee. The AO treated the undisclosed amount as income, leading to an addition to the total income of the assessee. The discrepancy arose from the transfer of an amount to the 'Contingent Sales Account' without including it in the total sales, as per the AO's findings.Issue 2: Treatment of income related to power divisionThe AO contended that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should have recognized the total sales in the Profit & Loss account based on the bills raised. The AO added the undisclosed amount to the income, affecting the deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.Issue 3: Application of mercantile system of accountingThe AO emphasized the application of the mercantile system, where income accrual is independent of receipts. The assessee's method of reducing turnover in the Profit & Loss account was deemed contradictory, violating Accounting Standard '9' on revenue recognition.Issue 4: Revenue recognition and adjustmentsThe CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, citing previous tribunal decisions where the disputed sale price was not treated as income until settled. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that revenue recognition should align with actual income accrued as per prevailing situations.Issue 5: Appeal against the AO's orderThe assessee appealed against the AO's decision, arguing that the disputed sale price should be considered contingent until resolved. Previous tribunal decisions supported the assessee's stance, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.Issue 6: Decision of the CIT(A)The CIT(A) based the decision on previous tribunal rulings, where the disputed sale price was not recognized as income until resolved. The CIT(A) upheld the appeal of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.Issue 7: Admissibility of deduction under section 80-IAThe addition to the income by the AO impacted the deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) decision in favor of the assessee led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal, rendering the cross objections filed by the assessee infructuous.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of revenue recognition, adherence to accounting standards, and the impact of the mercantile system of accounting on income determination in the context of the disputed sale price and contingent sales. The decision favored the assessee based on previous tribunal rulings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 