RELATIONSHIP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2067/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2025Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had rightly worked out the revenue recognition as per the Guidance Note issued by ICAI. The authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim without plausible reasoning.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a real estate developer, entered into a development agreement and made a deposit. The AO made a significant addition to the assessee's income based on altered calculations of the percentage of completion method and revenue recognition. The CIT(A) sustained a reduced addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of revenue recognition under the percentage of completion method was justified, considering the assessee's adherence to accounting standards.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rushav Patawari
For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad
Hearing: 02.09.2025Pronounced: 27.10.2025

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act'), dated 21.02.2024, for the Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y.’) 2017-18 which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai , dated 30.12.2019. 2 Relationship Properties Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under:

“1. The assessment order passed in violation of the procedure for l

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →