TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition of Rs.1,97,12,000/- made by applying Section 43CB (percentage of completion method) was correctly sustained by the assessing officer, or whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting that addition where the assessee followed project completion method consistently in earlier years.
Analysis: The statutory framework involves Section 43CB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the accounting approaches encompassed by percentage of completion method under ICDS III and the alternative project/completed contract method. The factual premise is that the assessee adopted project completion method in prior assessment years and the method was accepted by the tax authorities in earlier assessments. The appellate authority examined the comparative application of percentage completion method versus project completion method, noted prior acceptance of the assessee's accounting treatment, and reviewed relevant legal authorities and guidance (including references to ICDS and CBDT clarification) bearing on the distinction between a construction contractor and a real estate developer and on the binding effect of an accepted accounting method in earlier assessments.
Conclusion: The deletion of the impugned addition is upheld; the assessing officer's application of Section 43CB to make the impugned addition is rejected and the addition of Rs.1,97,12,000/- is deleted in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appellate outcome confirms that where an assessee has consistently adopted and had prior acceptance of the project/completed contract method of accounting, an assessing officer's retrospective recharacterisation under Section 43CB using percentage completion method was not sustained and the appellate deletion stands.
TaxTMI 
