← All Phrases

“project completion method”

ICDS & AccountingICDS IIIICDS III326 judgments

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

Leading authorities on project 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. Shivalik Buildwell P Ltd.
40 Taxmann.com 219 · 2013 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Real estate developers' profits arise only upon the transfer of title, and advances received from customers cannot be treated as trading receipts in the year of receipt.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation
133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. Happy Home Corporation
94 Taxmann.com 292 · 2018 · High Court
42
citing judgments

When a partner admits to undisclosed income during a survey, and that income is linked to future sale deed registrations, it can be considered as income received for the purpose of assessment under Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if it is subject to conditions.

Ltd. v. ITO
64 DTR 251 · 2011 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim of being in the construction business and its use of the project completion method, and the Revenue did not take remedial measures under sections 263 or 147, indicating acceptance of the assessment.

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.

Judgments citing project completion method

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

same was required to be offered to tax, in the year in which the project was completed, as the assessee was following ‘Project Completion Method’. The Ld. AR has further brought to our notice that, the project in question, was completed in AY 2019-20 and that the assessee ... examination of the submission of the appellant it can be seen that the appellant firm submits that it has been consistently following the “Project Completion Method” of accounting. Since the OMR Road Project was not completed during the AY 2016-17, the receipts for the sale of space

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

same was required to be offered to tax, in the year in which the project was completed, as the assessee was following ‘Project Completion Method’. The Ld. AR has further brought to our notice that, the project in question, was completed in AY 2019-20 and that the assessee ... examination of the submission of the appellant it can be seen that the appellant firm submits that it has been consistently following the “Project Completion Method” of accounting. Since the OMR Road Project was not completed during the AY 2016-17, the receipts for the sale of space

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

same was required to be offered to tax, in the year in which the project was completed, as the assessee was following ‘Project Completion Method’. The Ld. AR has further brought to our notice that, the project in question, was completed in AY 2019-20 and that the assessee ... examination of the submission of the appellant it can be seen that the appellant firm submits that it has been consistently following the “Project Completion Method” of accounting. Since the OMR Road Project was not completed during the AY 2016-17, the receipts for the sale of space

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

same was required to be offered to tax, in the year in which the project was completed, as the assessee was following ‘Project Completion Method’. The Ld. AR has further brought to our notice that, the project in question, was completed in AY 2019-20 and that the assessee ... examination of the submission of the appellant it can be seen that the appellant firm submits that it has been consistently following the “Project Completion Method” of accounting. Since the OMR Road Project was not completed during the AY 2016-17, the receipts for the sale of space

Pinnacle Consrto and Ecohomes Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-4, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2818/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2818/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pinnacle Contro & V Dcit, Ecohomes Pvt. Ltd., S Circle-4, Pune. Madhav Heritage, Tilak Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaecp0400E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18Dated 01.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Act, Dated 27.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Reassessment Bad In Law.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

that Assessee had 7 offered the entire amount of Rs.54,80,026/- for taxation. Assessee ITA No.2818/PUN/2025 [A] had submitted that it follows Project Completion Method. Assessee also filed copy of ledger account showing the same. Assessee had raised legal objections also. 2.10 It is noted that Assessing Officer

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee's contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

ITA 759/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

similar lines to that of developer. On perusal of the response of the assessee,the AO found that the assessee is adopting project completion method and the assessee’s contention that percentage completion method is not applicable in the case of the assessee is not tenable ... contractor, the landlord is free to adopt the method that it had been consistently following with. 3. The assessee has adopted the project completion method of recognition of revenue and had been consistently following it over the years, the method of accounting is not subjective to any change

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Guwahati vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. Steels (P) Ltd, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Section 133(6)

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is following the project completion method and has been offerings to tax the income earned from the sale of flats in the housing project. Whereas the ld. AO has invoked the percentage completion ... earlier assessment years unless there is change in the facts of the current year. Therefore, following the rule of consistency, the project completion method followed by the respondent is to be accepted since there is no change in facts and circumstances over the years. Consequently, we upheld the order

Faithfull Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6347/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareshwar Chidarafaithfull Developers Vs. Acit – 20(1) 747, Rekha Sadan Piramal Chamber 6, Parsi Colony Road, Dadar Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400014. Mumbai – 400012. Pan/Gir No. Aaaff7720N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 43C

During the course of appeal proceedings, appellant submitted that it was following regularly and consistently the project completion method. For the FY 2016- 17, relevant to AY 2017-18 income was offered under project completion method which was accepted by the department. Hence, the appellant should be allowed to continue ... project completion method in the subsequent years also. The income would be offered on sale of flats as and when the sale is completed. Appellant requested that the addition of Rs.11,13,08,897/- based on the estimated profit under 4.5 Appellant's submissions were carefully considered. With introduction

DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Construction, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Avinash Construction, Room No. 803, 8Th Floor, Abil House 2, Old Cgo Annexe Building, Vs. Ganesh Khind Road, M.K.Road, Range Hill Corner, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411007. Pan : Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

books of account. We further noticed infirmities in the consolidated income computed by the id. CIT(A). Since the assessee was following the project completion method but for the A.Y. 2020-21 no sale/revenue was mentioned against the net income/net profit of Rs. 1,31,95,081/- which was shown

M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation Cit(Appeals) 1St Floor, Hanuman Corporation Aayakar Bhavan 308 Perin, Nariman Road, Fort Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaafa3654J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Surendra MohanFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(g)

crore till A.Y. 2024-25 and the lower authorities have agreed with the contention of company that they are following project completion method. c) There is a categorical finding by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure claimed is genuine and penalty was levied only because this expenditure claimed

Sameer Ramesh Vashi, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sameer Ramesh Vashi Vs The Principal Commissioner 702, Samrock Apartment, C.D. Of Income Tax, Barfiwala Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai-17 Mumbai - 400058 [Pan: Aaapv6356Q] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order Of Pcit, Mumbai–17, Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024- 25/1070374871(1), Dated 14.11.2024 Passed U/S. 263 Against The Assessment Order By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 14.03.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Pcit, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dt 24-03-2021 Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Hence Directed The Ao To Reframe The Assessment.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

also submitted that method of recognition of revenue for the real estate projects undertaken by the assessee is by following project completion method which has been accepted by the Department 4 Sameer Ramesh Vashi AY 2018-19 since past several years. Claim of expenditure are in respect of administrative expenses

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

computed on the basis of percentage of completion method. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the said addition and inter-alia held that project completed method or CCM is a well-recognized method of accounting and is the only method suitable for any developer who has to deliver a completed ... ITAT. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court are reproduced as under: “8. It is well settled that the project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. ….. 9. After the above judgments of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the project

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

computed on the basis of percentage of completion method. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the said addition and inter-alia held that project completed method or CCM is a well-recognized method of accounting and is the only method suitable for any developer who has to deliver a completed ... ITAT. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court are reproduced as under: “8. It is well settled that the project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. ….. 9. After the above judgments of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the project

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

computed on the basis of percentage of completion method. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the said addition and inter-alia held that project completed method or CCM is a well-recognized method of accounting and is the only method suitable for any developer who has to deliver a completed ... ITAT. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court are reproduced as under: “8. It is well settled that the project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting. ….. 9. After the above judgments of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that the project