<?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>Assessee&#039;s Revenue Recognition Under AS-9 Upheld, AO&#039;s PCM Application Under AS-7 and Section 43CB Rejected</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90203</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s method of revenue recognition under AS-9, wherein income is recognized upon execution of sale deeds and possession transfer, rejecting the AO&#039;s application of PCM under AS-7 and Section 43CB. The tribunal found the assessee consistently capitalized costs as work-in-progress and credited advances as liabilities rather than revenue, reflecting proper accounting treatment. The AO&#039;s adverse inference applying PCM was deemed erroneous as the assessee was a developer, not a contractor. Following precedents, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the lower authorities, allowing the assessee&#039;s grounds and confirming the acceptance of the revenue recognition method for the assessment year in question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Assessee&#039;s Revenue Recognition Under AS-9 Upheld, AO&#039;s PCM Application Under AS-7 and Section 43CB Rejected</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90203</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the assessee&#039;s method of revenue recognition under AS-9, wherein income is recognized upon execution of sale deeds and possession transfer, rejecting the AO&#039;s application of PCM under AS-7 and Section 43CB. The tribunal found the assessee consistently capitalized costs as work-in-progress and credited advances as liabilities rather than revenue, reflecting proper accounting treatment. The AO&#039;s adverse inference applying PCM was deemed erroneous as the assessee was a developer, not a contractor. Following precedents, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the lower authorities, allowing the assessee&#039;s grounds and confirming the acceptance of the revenue recognition method for the assessment year in question.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>