← All Phrases

“percentage completion method”

ICDS & AccountingICDS IIIICDS III467 judgments

The decision most relied on for percentage completion method is CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on percentage completion method

CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
299 ITR 1 · 2008 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

The project completion method and the percentage of completion method are both recognized methods for recognizing income from real estate contracts.

CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
291 ITR 482 · 2007 · Supreme Court
166
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that the 'project completion method' and the 'percentage of completion method' are recognized accounting methods for ascertaining profit for contracts. The case affirms these methods in the context of contract accounts.

CIT v. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD.
212 Taxmann 342 · 2013 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Accounting Standard 7 is not applicable to real estate developers, and therefore, the percentage of completion method cannot be imposed on them. Assessees are justified in following the project completion method as per Accounting Standard 9.

Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
33 DTR 514 · 2010 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

A real estate developer adopting the completed contract method of accounting cannot be forced to follow the percentage completion method under AS-7 if AS-7 has not been specified by the Central Government under section 145(2). The Assessing Officer cannot reject accounts under section 145(3) solely on this ground.

CIT v. Associated Cables P. Ltd.
286 ITR 596 · 2006 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Retention money withheld by a contractee is not taxable in the year it is retained, but only in the year the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and the amount becomes due to the assessee.

Mazagaon Dock Limited v. JCIT
29 SOT 356 · 2009 · ITAT
25
citing judgments

Anticipated or foreseeable losses on fixed-price construction contracts are deductible in the year the loss is foreseen, aligning with accounting standards like AS-7. This approach is supported by decisions allowing deduction of foreseeable losses based on technical estimation.

Wall Construction Co Ltd. v. JCIT
102 TTJ 505 · 2006 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

Interest expenditure on borrowed funds used for stock-in-trade is allowable as a deduction in the year the revenue is offered to tax, even when following the percentage completion method for recognizing revenue.

CIT v. Aditya Builders
378 ITR 75 · 2015 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The appropriate method of accounting to correctly reflect a true financial statement is a matter of opinion and debate, which is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer cannot change the method of revenue recognition to the percentage completion method if the assessee has consistently followed the project completion method.

Judgments citing percentage completion method

Nirman Realtors and Developers Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3447/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Aakash Value Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

impugned assessment order, are that the assessee, a private limited company engaged in the business of builders and property developers and following the percentage completion method, filed its original return of income on 17 October 2016 declaring total income of ₹33,45,59,140/-. The assessee’s case was reopened

Milan Theatres P Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5072/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 342Section 45(2)

assessee furnished a revised computation of income along with an annexure, wherein, in the concluding paragraph, it stated that apart from adopting the percentage completion method, the Assessing Officer had disallowed certain expenses, and keeping in view the said aspect and the fact that the project was completed during

Assertive Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4200/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 40

assessee is a private limited company and 's engaged in the business of real estale development. The assessee recognizes revenue under the Percentage Completion Method (POCM) in eal estate projects as per Accounting Standard 7 (AS+7) read with Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions (Revised ... Guidance note on accounting of real estate transaction. In view of the same, the assessee for the year under consideration has applied the percentage completion method and as the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15, being the first year of development the company has not achieved the milestone

Snn Spiritua Developer, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

assessee, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, calling for details relating to revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method (POCM). The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was computing revenue on a POCM basis only in respect of the areas covered by agreements ... written agreement, in respect of the booked area between the assessee and the prospective purchasers. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed revenue under the Percentage Completion Method at Rs. 13,02,70,824 and made an addition of Rs. 11,73,94,617 to the income of the assessee as against

Snn Spiritua Developer, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1223/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250

assessee, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, calling for details relating to revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method (POCM). The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was computing revenue on a POCM basis only in respect of the areas covered by agreements ... written agreement, in respect of the booked area between the assessee and the prospective purchasers. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed revenue under the Percentage Completion Method at Rs. 13,02,70,824 and made an addition of Rs. 11,73,94,617 to the income of the assessee as against

ACIT Circle - 22(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Supreme Mega Constructions LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1891/MUM/2025[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Ms. Dhara Sheth (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: 25/11/2025
Section 143(3)

known as “Supreme Elenor”, comprising construction of 75 residential flats. The assessee followed t residential flats. The assessee followed the percentage completion he percentage completion method for recognition of revenue and profits from the project, in method for recognition of revenue and profits from the project, in method for recognition ... assessee for computing total project cost of the assessee for computing profit from the project under the percentage completion method, profit from the project under the percentage compl profit from the project under the percentage compl allocated the cost of project in cost of project in proportionate to the area

M.S. Builders, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Moradabad

ITA 616/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

ITA No.616/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "B" BENCH: NEW DELHI ITA No.616/Del/2025 BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Rs.4,19,97,354/- by re-computing the income of the assessee from the real-estate project by applying the percentage completion method as against the plea of the assessee that it has been regularly following project completion method. The AO, in the course of assessment, noted that ... which was applicable in the relevant AY 2017-18, the assessee was statutorily required to disclose income from its projects under the percentage completion method, which it had not done so. In terms of the provisions of Section 43CB, the AO held that, as the assessee had completed more than

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Rs.4,19,97,354/- by re-computing the income of the assessee from the real-estate project by applying the percentage completion method as against the plea of the assessee that it has been regularly following project completion method. The AO, in the course of assessment, noted that ... which was applicable in the relevant AY 2017-18, the assessee was statutorily required to disclose income from its projects under the percentage completion method, which it had not done so. In terms of the provisions of Section 43CB, the AO held that, as the assessee had completed more than

Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cent. Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Rs.4,19,97,354/- by re-computing the income of the assessee from the real-estate project by applying the percentage completion method as against the plea of the assessee that it has been regularly following project completion method. The AO, in the course of assessment, noted that ... which was applicable in the relevant AY 2017-18, the assessee was statutorily required to disclose income from its projects under the percentage completion method, which it had not done so. In terms of the provisions of Section 43CB, the AO held that, as the assessee had completed more than

DCIT, Chennai vs. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

Rs.4,19,97,354/- by re-computing the income of the assessee from the real-estate project by applying the percentage completion method as against the plea of the assessee that it has been regularly following project completion method. The AO, in the course of assessment, noted that ... which was applicable in the relevant AY 2017-18, the assessee was statutorily required to disclose income from its projects under the percentage completion method, which it had not done so. In terms of the provisions of Section 43CB, the AO held that, as the assessee had completed more than

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1244/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Commission paid on bookings and Interest claimed, without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not recognized the revenue on the basis of 'Percentage Completion Method' during the year under consideration. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)- 3, Noida has erred ... time of hearing, ld. DR of Revenue submitted that the assessee had though it has not declared any revenue. The assessee is following percentage completion method of accounting. Therefore, when they have not declared any revenue, there is no corresponding expenditure that should have been declared. There is no matching

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1240/DEL/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Commission paid on bookings and Interest claimed, without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not recognized the revenue on the basis of 'Percentage Completion Method' during the year under consideration. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)- 3, Noida has erred ... time of hearing, ld. DR of Revenue submitted that the assessee had though it has not declared any revenue. The assessee is following percentage completion method of accounting. Therefore, when they have not declared any revenue, there is no corresponding expenditure that should have been declared. There is no matching

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 782/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... been declaring profit and paying the tax on regular basis, the assessee ought to have recognized the revenue as per the percentage completion method on the similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 781/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... been declaring profit and paying the tax on regular basis, the assessee ought to have recognized the revenue as per the percentage completion method on the similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 780/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... been declaring profit and paying the tax on regular basis, the assessee ought to have recognized the revenue as per the percentage completion method on the similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Anushka Realty Inc, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 779/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... been declaring profit and paying the tax on regular basis, the assessee ought to have recognized the revenue as per the percentage completion method on the similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 761/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... been declaring profit and paying the tax on regular basis, the assessee ought to have recognized the revenue as per the percentage completion method on the similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Anushka Estates, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 760/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Nagin Kincha & Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RsFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head Profits & gains of business or profession based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA and secondly the ld.CIT(A) ignored the fact that the significant risk and rewards of ownership ... erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under the head income from Business which was computed based on percentage completion method for income arising from revenue sharing from JDA. II. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred