M/S. INTERVIEW MASTER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(2), BENGALURU

The learned Commissioner is not justified in confirming the order of the learned assessing officer ignoring the facts and circumstances and the documentary evidence submitted during the course of hearing 3. Learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the appellant had followed the mandatory accounting standards (AS-9) pronounced by the [CAI as well as the mandate of section 145 of the Income Tax Act in recognizing the revenue during the relevant previous year. 4. The learned Commissioner has erred in law in not declaring that the learned assessing officer was not justified in treating the entire receipts, covering more than one financial year, during the year of receipt itself, merely based on appellant's Service Tax Returns. 5. The Learned Commissioner in not justified in not granting adequate opportunity to the appellant to submit additional information/documents, if so desired by him in support of their claim. 6. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that it is the settled law, the amount received, in advance, against services to be rendered (at a later date) in subsequent financial year, cid not accrue as income during the year of receipt and that the revenue accrues only during the re4evant previous year when the actual service was rendered. 7. Learned Commissioner is not justified in selectively considering certain clauses of the master agreement dated 19.06.2017 and drawing certain adverse inferences, contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Commissioner ought to have been guided by the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble ITAT / High Court, Delhi, under similar circumstances in the following cases: a. DOT Circle 8(1), New Delhi Vs Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd ( ITAT-Del) b. CIT Vs Shyam Telelinks Ltd.,” Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. Ld.AO notes that assessee was incorporated during financia year 2013-14 and was involved in software publishing, consultancy and supply. Assessee had filed its return of income on 30/09/2015 for year under consideration. Ld.AO noticed that assessee received