https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95413 The dominant issue was whether revenue from sale of flats had to be recognized in the year under the percentage completion method due to alleged crossing of a 25% threshold, despite the assessee consistently following the project completion method. Since the assessee had offered the same sales to tax in subsequent years upon project completion, forcing recognition in the impugned year would cause impermissible double taxation; further, consistency in accepted accounting treatment could not be disturbed absent any change in facts. Accordingly, the addition for unrecognized revenue was deleted. The issue of disallowance of interest under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(2)(a) failed because the interest was not claimed in the profit and loss account but capitalized as work-in-progress, so no deduction was to be disallowed. - ITAT en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95413 The dominant issue was whether revenue from sale of flats had to be recognized in the year under the percentage completion method due to alleged crossing of a 25% threshold, despite the assessee consistently following the project completion method. Since the assessee had offered the same sales to tax in subsequent years upon project completion, forcing recognition in the impugned year would cause impermissible double taxation; further, consistency in accepted accounting treatment could not be disturbed absent any change in facts. Accordingly, the addition for unrecognized revenue was deleted. The issue of disallowance of interest under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(2)(a) failed because the interest was not claimed in the profit and loss account but capitalized as work-in-progress, so no deduction was to be disallowed. - ITAT Highlights Income Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95413