https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762259 ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was entitled to follow project completion method consistently used, rejecting AO's application of percentage completion method. Tribunal found assessee completed only 10% of project with 24 out of 228 flats under agreement, insufficient to trigger percentage completion method. Differences between GST and ITR turnover were properly reconciled as different statutes have distinct parameters. Commission/brokerage expenses were allowable as incurred per agreement terms. Issues regarding architect fees and transportation charges were remanded to AO for fresh adjudication, considering COVID-19 assessment difficulties and allowing assessee opportunity to substantiate claims with proper documentation. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762259 ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was entitled to follow project completion method consistently used, rejecting AO's application of percentage completion method. Tribunal found assessee completed only 10% of project with 24 out of 228 flats under agreement, insufficient to trigger percentage completion method. Differences between GST and ITR turnover were properly reconciled as different statutes have distinct parameters. Commission/brokerage expenses were allowable as incurred per agreement terms. Issues regarding architect fees and transportation charges were remanded to AO for fresh adjudication, considering COVID-19 assessment difficulties and allowing assessee opportunity to substantiate claims with proper documentation. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762259