https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356610 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by applying the Percentage Completion Method. It found that the AO's rejection of the accounts solely for not following Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9 was unfounded and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court also confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), stating that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to support the disallowances. The appeals were dismissed in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of consistent and recognized accounting methods and the requirement for the AO to provide substantial evidence when rejecting accounts or making disallowances. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:04:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356610 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by applying the Percentage Completion Method. It found that the AO's rejection of the accounts solely for not following Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9 was unfounded and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court also confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), stating that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to support the disallowances. The appeals were dismissed in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of consistent and recognized accounting methods and the requirement for the AO to provide substantial evidence when rejecting accounts or making disallowances. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356610