Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The ITAT upheld the assessee's method of revenue recognition under AS-9, wherein income is recognized upon execution of sale deeds and possession transfer, rejecting the AO's application of PCM under AS-7 and Section 43CB. The tribunal found the assessee consistently capitalized costs as work-in-progress and credited advances as liabilities rather than revenue, reflecting proper accounting treatment. The AO's adverse inference applying PCM was deemed erroneous as the assessee was a developer, not a contractor. Following precedents, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the lower authorities, allowing the assessee's grounds and confirming the acceptance of the revenue recognition method for the assessment year in question.
The ITAT upheld the assessee's method of revenue recognition under AS-9, wherein income is recognized upon execution of sale deeds and possession transfer, rejecting the AO's application of PCM under AS-7 and Section 43CB. The tribunal found the assessee consistently capitalized costs as work-in-progress and credited advances as liabilities rather than revenue, reflecting proper accounting treatment. The AO's adverse inference applying PCM was deemed erroneous as the assessee was a developer, not a contractor. Following precedents, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the lower authorities, allowing the assessee's grounds and confirming the acceptance of the revenue recognition method for the assessment year in question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.