<?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>Project-completion accounting cannot be rejected without accounting defects or evidence of undisclosed flat-sale consideration.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103652</link>
    <description>Project-completion accounting, when consistently followed by a real estate developer, is a recognised method and cannot be rejected merely because substantial sale proceeds were received or the Assessing Officer preferred a different revenue-recognition method. Rejection under section 145 was unsustainable because no specific defect showed that the accounts were unreliable, while estimated profit was applied to recorded receipts without an independent basis. Differing flat agreement values also did not establish undisclosed consideration without cogent evidence of actual on-money receipts. Payments for extra work under separate agreements could not be attributed to the developer solely through a director&#039;s connection. The book rejection and additions were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:13:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:13:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Project-completion accounting cannot be rejected without accounting defects or evidence of undisclosed flat-sale consideration.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103652</link>
      <description>Project-completion accounting, when consistently followed by a real estate developer, is a recognised method and cannot be rejected merely because substantial sale proceeds were received or the Assessing Officer preferred a different revenue-recognition method. Rejection under section 145 was unsustainable because no specific defect showed that the accounts were unreliable, while estimated profit was applied to recorded receipts without an independent basis. Differing flat agreement values also did not establish undisclosed consideration without cogent evidence of actual on-money receipts. Payments for extra work under separate agreements could not be attributed to the developer solely through a director&#039;s connection. The book rejection and additions were deleted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:13:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>