<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (4) TMI 911 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341941</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Private Limited Company&#039;s appeal, emphasizing adherence to accounting standards and justification for postponing revenue recognition based on non-satisfaction of conditions outlined in relevant guidance notes and accounting standards. The Tribunal found no merit in taxing the advance amount received for flat nos. 701 and 702, as the appellant offered the income in the subsequent year when permissions were obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 911 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341941</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Private Limited Company&#039;s appeal, emphasizing adherence to accounting standards and justification for postponing revenue recognition based on non-satisfaction of conditions outlined in relevant guidance notes and accounting standards. The Tribunal found no merit in taxing the advance amount received for flat nos. 701 and 702, as the appellant offered the income in the subsequent year when permissions were obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>