Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT holds that, applying the ICAI Guidance Note on Real Estate Accounting (Revised 2012), land and development rights qualify as direct project costs but must be excluded when determining the 25% construction-and-development-cost threshold to trigger revenue recognition under the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM); once that threshold is met using construction and development costs, total project costs (including land) determine stage of completion and revenue to be recognized. The taxpayer's POCM application was correct: Phase-1 exceeded the 25% threshold whereas Phase-2A did not (19.5205%), and unreconciled revenue was recognized in subsequent years at unchanged tax rates. Absent evidence of deliberate evasion or inconsistent accounting, ITAT found the AO and lower authority's additions unjustified, directed vacatur of those additions and allowed the taxpayer's appeal.
ITAT holds that, applying the ICAI Guidance Note on Real Estate Accounting (Revised 2012), land and development rights qualify as direct project costs but must be excluded when determining the 25% construction-and-development-cost threshold to trigger revenue recognition under the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM); once that threshold is met using construction and development costs, total project costs (including land) determine stage of completion and revenue to be recognized. The taxpayer's POCM application was correct: Phase-1 exceeded the 25% threshold whereas Phase-2A did not (19.5205%), and unreconciled revenue was recognized in subsequent years at unchanged tax rates. Absent evidence of deliberate evasion or inconsistent accounting, ITAT found the AO and lower authority's additions unjustified, directed vacatur of those additions and allowed the taxpayer's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.