https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336650 A recognised project completion method for revenue recognition could not be rejected under section 145(1) merely because income was deferred until conveyance, where the method was consistently followed, reflected in the books and supported by the integrated nature of the long-term colonisation project. The court also accepted that land cost and saleable area had to be computed on the basis of the project as a whole, not by artificially excluding Phase IV or altering the write-off for land reserved for roads, parks and community purposes. The Revenue's proposed recomputation was held unwarranted because it lacked a sound factual basis and would distort project results. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Dec 2016 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336650 A recognised project completion method for revenue recognition could not be rejected under section 145(1) merely because income was deferred until conveyance, where the method was consistently followed, reflected in the books and supported by the integrated nature of the long-term colonisation project. The court also accepted that land cost and saleable area had to be computed on the basis of the project as a whole, not by artificially excluding Phase IV or altering the write-off for land reserved for roads, parks and community purposes. The Revenue's proposed recomputation was held unwarranted because it lacked a sound factual basis and would distort project results. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336650