Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
