Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
The ITAT addressed a case involving a change in accounting policy from Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) to Project Completion Method (PCM) for revenue recognition. The assessee declared a net loss due to the change and the AO added the financial impact as profit, resulting in a significantly higher profit than industry average. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the impact in financial statements for both current and previous years, ensuring correct profit calculation. It emphasized that a change in accounting method does not imply profit understatement, as it is a legitimate decision guided by accounting standards. The ITAT upheld the assessee's right to choose the accounting method and instructed the AO to reevaluate the issue, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case. The assessee's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT addressed a case involving a change in accounting policy from Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) to Project Completion Method (PCM) for revenue recognition. The assessee declared a net loss due to the change and the AO added the financial impact as profit, resulting in a significantly higher profit than industry average. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the impact in financial statements for both current and previous years, ensuring correct profit calculation. It emphasized that a change in accounting method does not imply profit understatement, as it is a legitimate decision guided by accounting standards. The ITAT upheld the assessee's right to choose the accounting method and instructed the AO to reevaluate the issue, allowing the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case. The assessee's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
