Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96001 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.