https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379680 Dispute arose over whether the difference between the invoiced amount and income recorded in the books was taxable in the relevant year. The assessee said the balance represented an advance under a consultancy arrangement and was offered to tax later, while the lower authorities treated the full invoice value as accrued income based on the invoice, service tax return, and payer's accounting treatment. A certificate produced at the hearing indicated the consultancy agreement had been executed and signed on 26 March 2013, with the date omitted inadvertently. Because this material was not before the lower authorities and the agreement's effect, together with the subsequent year's tax position, required verification, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2019 16:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379680 Dispute arose over whether the difference between the invoiced amount and income recorded in the books was taxable in the relevant year. The assessee said the balance represented an advance under a consultancy arrangement and was offered to tax later, while the lower authorities treated the full invoice value as accrued income based on the invoice, service tax return, and payer's accounting treatment. A certificate produced at the hearing indicated the consultancy agreement had been executed and signed on 26 March 2013, with the date omitted inadvertently. Because this material was not before the lower authorities and the agreement's effect, together with the subsequent year's tax position, required verification, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379680