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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Court affirms Tribunal ruling in tax case appeal, upholding assessee's choice of accounting method</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai III Versus M/s. Subramanyan Construction Company (P) Ltd.,</h3> The court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the tax case appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent-company engaged in civil construction ... Construction Contract – completed or incomplete project method of accounting - While completing the assessment, the assessing officer adopted the incomplete project method of accounting and thereby estimated an additional income with regard to the assessee's incomplete project shown as work-in-progress. – CIT(A) and ITAT decided in favor of assessee - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in computing the profits from the assessee's business of construction contracts including the profits accrued on the incomplete projects? – held that - Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have concurrently held that from the inception the assessee had been following the completed contract method of accounting and the returns were filed only adopting the said method of accounting till the assessment year in question and there was no defect or inconsistency in the said accounting method adopted by the assessee. As pointed out by the revenue, the assessee has also shown the incomplete project in the form of work-in-progress in the books of accounts upon which the assessing officer estimated the income at the rate of 10%.– Decision in CIT v. N.M.Associates, [2008 -TMI - 12590 - MADRAS High Court ]distinguished– Decision of Supreme Court in CIT v. McMillan & Co.[ 2010 -TMI - 75376 - SUPREME COURT] followed - If the method adopted by the assessee is consistent and regular, the revenue should not have insisted the assessee to adopt a particular method of accounting or valuation. Issues involved:Appeal against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 2003-2004 - Whether Assessing Officer justified in computing profits from construction contracts including profits accrued on incomplete projectsRs.Analysis:The appeal in question was filed by the revenue against an order related to the assessment year 2003-2004. The respondent-company, engaged in civil construction contracts, had its assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer estimated additional income based on incomplete project method of accounting for the assessee's work-in-progress project. The assessee challenged this order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which ruled in favor of the assessee. Subsequently, the revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which also rejected their claim, leading to the current tax case appeal.Both the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concurred that the revenue did not dispute the fact that the assessee had consistently followed the completed contract method of accounting since 1996-97. The revenue had accepted the returns filed by the assessee using this method until the assessment year in question. No defects or inconsistencies were found in the assessee's accounting method. The incomplete project, shown as work-in-progress, was added to the income by the assessing officer, but the Tribunal and the Commissioner found no fault with the assessee's accounting approach.The court emphasized that the assessee has the freedom to choose different accounting methods for various income sources, and the taxing authorities cannot enforce a specific method. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. McMillan & Co., it was established that as long as the chosen method is consistent and regular, the revenue cannot compel a change. The revenue's argument citing a previous case was dismissed as the circumstances were different. In this case, the assessee had consistently followed the completed contract method, and there were no issues with their accounting practices. Given the nature of civil construction business where profits are challenging to ascertain using incomplete accounting methods, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the tax case appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found