“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S Sahara States, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/IND/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

following manner: “36. There is yet another reason for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Take a scenario where an Assessee, following the project completion method of accounting, has completed the housing project approved by the local authority complying with all the conditions as set out in section

ACIT 3(3)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2961/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

measuring about 35,500 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.94,50,00,000/-. The assessee company records profits after completion of project following ‘projection completion method’ and for the year under consideration also the same method was followed. Now, the grievance of the Ld.AO was that the assessee has followed ... order of PM Mohammed Meerkhan vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC), the Ld.AO suggested for the percentage of completion method instead of project completion method and second issue was that as per Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)’s guidance note on accounting real estate transactions, once

ACIT 3 (3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result ground nos

ITA 2960/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

measuring about 35,500 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.94,50,00,000/-. The assessee company records profits after completion of project following ‘projection completion method' and for the year under consideration also the same method was followed. Now, the grievance of the Ld.AO was that the assessee has followed ... order of PM Mohammed Meerkhan vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC), the Ld.AO suggested for the percentage of completion method instead of project completion method and second issue was that as per Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)'s guidance note on accounting real estate transactions, once

Vsr Infratech Private Limited, Vasant Vihar Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3154/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 605/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.604&605/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S Utkal Builders Ltd…....…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant Plot No.777, Virayatan Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Khorda, Orissa – 751007. [Pan: Aaacu5502C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata……............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.02.2024 & 14.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. 2. Ita No.604/Kol/2024 - The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Utkal Builders Ltd No: GA/2/2022 order dated 26.07.2022, wherein, under similar circumstances, the Jurisdictional High Court held that wherein, the assessee is following project completion method and in the absence of any prohibition or restriction under the provisions of Income Tax Act, the CIT(A) cannot be held

M/S. Utkal Builders Ltd., Bhubaneshwar vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed not only on legal ground of violation of principles of natural justice but also on merits

ITA 604/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 131Section 250Section 68

Shree Samarth Constructions, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deslhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3369/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Shree Samarth Constructions National Faceless Assessment Centre Room No. 7, Indira Nagar Kishan, North Block, Delhi-110 001 No.2 Opp. Balasara Co. Wagle Estate, Vs. Thane (W), Thane-400 604

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram - Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

year has executed 28 sale agreements. However, said sale agreements are not recognized in sales as the Appellant firm has adopted a project completion method for its business and the said sales are incorporated/shown under the Work in Progress. Therefore, there is no undisclosed or unexplained income earned ... case, it is observed that the assessee firm has entered into a development agreement during the year under consideration and has been following project completion method. It is observed that the said project of the assessee 4 Shree Samarth Constructions vs. NFAC has not been completed for various reasons

Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Range-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2808/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

submitted any reply/documents and consequently failed to substantiate the flowing main ground raised before the Ld. Commissioner: “3. The Assessee has been following project completion method in respect of all his ongoing projects of construction and development in all his proprietary concerns viz. Nova Nirman Nigam, Divya Development, Nova Space

ACIT 32 (1), Mumbai vs. Shubham Dynamic Real Estate Developers LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit 32(1), Shubham Dynamic Real Estate 202, Kuatilya Bhavan, Developers Llp, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. A-501, Gladdiola, Old Hanuman Mumbai-400051. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Abtfs 6658 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rahul Hakkani

Section 133A

Jogeshwari, Mumbai and for declaring profit from the real Mumbai and for declaring profit from the real estate project followed estate project followed ‘project completion method etion method’. The cost of construction incurred incurred was carried forward from year to year as was carried forward from year to year ... part of the forming part of the computation income computation income, the assessee stated that it the assessee stated that it was following project completion method and offered Rs.6,77,00,000/- to buy project completion method and offered Rs.6,77,00,000/ project completion method and offered Rs.6

DCIT, Thane vs. Unique Shanti Developers LLP, Thane

ITA 3902/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Unique Shanti Developers Llp, Acit Circle 32(3), Now Acit 103/104, Rajshree Apartment, Circle 1 Thane, Vs. Royal Compex, Eksar Road, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Borivali (W), 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400092. Thane (West)-400604. Pan No. Aaefu 1254 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Thane, Unique Shanti Developers Llp, Room No. 210, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Harish Plazza, 100 Road, 1St Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Vs. Floor, Opp Sector-2, Thane West-400604. Mira Road (E), Thane-400604. Pan No. Aaefu 1254 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hitesh Shah

assessee did not follow said method for recognizing profit from those old projects and profit from those old projects and followed ‘project completion project completion method’ . But, we find that the method followed by , we find that the method followed by , we find that the method followed by the assessee ... respect of those two projects is neither se two projects is neither ‘project completion method ject completion method’ nor ‘percentage completion method percentage completion method’ and it is a unique method s a unique method, which is combination of both methods. which is combination of both methods. According

Unique Shanti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central - 1, Thane

ITA 3856/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Hitesh Shah

Mayfair Properties, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 32, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 395/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.395/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mayfair Properties….…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 194, Hossenpur, Mayfair Tower, C N Roy Road, East Kolkata Township, West Bengal-700107. [Pan: Aagfm2513C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Kumar Mundra, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayansuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 20, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 06, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.16,47,19,380/- By Making Assessment Of The Income Of The Assessee Applying Percentage Completion Method As Against The Plea Of The Assessee That It Has Been Regularly Following Project Completion Method.

Section 145(2)Section 250

income of the assessee applying percentage completion method as against the plea of the assessee that it has been regularly following project completion method. I.T.A. No.395/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mayfair Properties 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged ... developers. During the year, the assessee company had undertaken two projects i.e. 1. Mayfair Greenwoods, 2. Mayfair Elite. The assessee has been following ‘project completion method’ of accounting, where the income is offered to tax on completion of the project. Further, the assessee firm had executed agreements for sale during

DCIT-CC-7(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Arihant Premises Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground Nos

ITA 1602/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit-Cc-7(3), Vs Arihant Premises Private Limited Room No-655, Aayakar Bhavan, 412, Floor-4, Vardhaman Chamber Maharishi Karve Road, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Mumbai-400 020 Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaaca7260K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SRDR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

interest as revenue expenses amount to Rs.7,40,84,000/- related to the loan from the bank. The assessee is following the project completion method. The entire amount of interest was treated as work-in-progress as the loan amount is invested in the work-in-progress

Prl Developers Private Limited, Mumbai City vs. Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground V of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 56(2)(viib)

Piramal Realty Pvt Ltd’(in short, ‘PRPL’). The assessee managed a project in Mulund named, ‘Revanta’. The assessee is recognizing the revenue in project completion method. During the impugned assessment year, the revenue has added back the excess claim of depreciation, sale promotion expenses amounting to Rs.94 ... completion method of accountingin the case of the assessee is without any basis. We also find that the assessee has been consistently following project completion method of accounting since the very inception of its business. The saidmethod of accounting has been consistently accepted as such by the AO in assessments

DCIT Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Darshnam Life Spaces Pvt Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 663/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Darshnam Life Spaces Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Central Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Platinum Complex, Vs Vadodara Opp. Ganga Jamuna Hospital, Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023 [Pan No.:Aadcd2030M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Appellate Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Ahmedabad Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act”) Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

following percentage completion method for recognition of Revenue. However, with respect to Darshanam Central Park the method of accounting used is based on project completion method and Revenue is recognized on sale of units per annum. Following the order passed in the Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer made ... addition by converting the project completion method to percentage completion method. However, that assessment order was challenged before this Tribunal by the Revenue and vide its common order in ITA No. 1590/Ahd/2016 dated 30.04.2019 the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held as follows:- A.Y. 2015-16 4 “7.2 Regarding

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

note that in the case of the assessee, the assessee has unsold inventory and as per the assessee he is following the project completion method, so when the actual possession of the flats is given the contention of the assessee that post possession of the units certain expense ... already reproduced in para 11 above. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is following project completion method and more than 90% of the project has been completed and the assessee sold the flats in assessment year 2017-18, therefore, the provision

Sh Tech Park Developers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2043/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

completion method till last year and during this assessment year the assessee has changed its method of accounting on the basis of project completion method. Therefore, it recognized Revenue from sale of land, complete property, project in progress and development right is recognized in the financial year in which significant ... duly submitted by the assessee during the year under consideration, that there had been change in accounting policy from POCM method to project completion method, regarding revenue recognition which was base upon Indian Accounting Standard issued by 'Institute of Chartered Accountants of India' and adopted by the Ministry of Corporate

M/S Dhanlaxmi Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-25(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 207/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68

audited books of account amounts received on booking of various units and not computed income as the assessee firm was following "Project completion method" and the returns of income for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2013-14 were scrutinized and the Project completion method followed by the assessee was accepted ... failed to appreciate that following "Project completion method" receipt of the further consideration from the parties who booked the units in the earlier years cannot be treated as income of the year in which the amount is received but income from the said amount is computed and offered for taxation

Skywards Kanakraj Developer, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Skywards Kanakraj Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Pune. Developer, Office No.704, Vb Capital, Range Hills Road, Opp. Symphony Restaurant Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411007. Pan : Acafs3003P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On The Merits Of The Case, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 40aSection 43B

stuck down. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the Project completion method followed by appellant constantly and further erred in substituting Percentage completion method and estimating net profit at 8 percent on adjusted WIP thereby, making an addition

Goodwill Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

Section 142A(1)Section 43C

that the assessee has offered the income on sale of the impugned flats during the said AY as per the Project Completion Method which is regularly followed by the assessee. The ld. AR also drew our attention to sample agreement of sale entered into by the assessee with the flat ... reported any sales from sale of units during the year under appeal in view of the fact that it is following project completion method and since the project was completed in Asst Year 2015-16, the assessee had reported the sale of units as its turnover in Asst Year