Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows real estate developer to use project completion method for income computation</h1> <h3>M/s Friends Land Developers Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate Versus DCIT, Circle-01, Ghaziabad, U.P.</h3> M/s Friends Land Developers Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate Versus DCIT, Circle-01, Ghaziabad, U.P. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the method employed by the assessee for computing income.2. Application of AS-7 versus AS-9 for income computation.3. Consistency in the method of accounting accepted by the Department in previous years.4. Jurisdictional High Court's decision in the preceding year.5. Validity of the lower authorities' application of percentage completion method.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Method Employed:The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee, a real estate developer, was justified in computing his income by adopting the project completion method instead of the percentage completion method. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained complete books of account and vouchers with no defects found in any assessment proceedings. The books were regularly assessed under section 143(3) without any adverse findings, even after a survey conducted under section 133A.2. Application of AS-7 versus AS-9:The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had been consistently using the project completion method (AS-9), a recognized method prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). AS-7, revised in 2002, applies to construction contractors, while AS-9 applies to real estate developers. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessee can follow any recognized method of accounting as long as it is consistent. The Department had accepted this method in previous years, and thus, could not compel the assessee to switch to AS-7.3. Consistency in the Method of Accounting:The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been regularly following the project completion method since the assessment year 2003-04. This method was accepted by the Department in all preceding years, including assessments under section 153A/143(3). The Tribunal cited that the project completion method is a recognized method by ICAI and should not be disturbed if consistently followed.4. Jurisdictional High Court's Decision in the Preceding Year:The Tribunal referred to the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court's decision, which dismissed the Departmental appeal against the Tribunal’s order for the assessment year 2013-14. The High Court upheld that the assessee, a real estate developer, was justified in using AS-9, and the Department could not shift its stand to compel the use of AS-7. The High Court emphasized that the consistent method of accounting followed by the assessee should not be disturbed in the absence of compelling reasons.5. Validity of the Lower Authorities' Application of Percentage Completion Method:The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in applying the percentage completion method. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also noted that there was no statutory provision mandating the use of AS-7 over AS-9 for the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was justified in adopting the project completion method, a recognized accounting method, for computing income. The impugned addition made by the lower authorities by applying the percentage completion method was ordered to be deleted. The alternative plea regarding the dispute over figures in the percentage completion method became infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in its entirety.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found