retention money — 115 judgments | BharatTax

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

purposes of percentage of method, project completion method or straight line method referred to in sub- section (1)—(0) the contract revenue shall include retention money; (ii) the contract costs shall not be reduced by any incidental income in the nature of interest, dividends or capital gains. 4.6 Appellant

OMPRAKASH RAMNIVAS SONI L/H. OF HARISH OMPRAKASH SONI,VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

ITA 656/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 69A

nTribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted regarding the source of cash\ndeposits of Rs.35,00,000/- that the assessee had to keep retention money from\ntruck drivers as security deposit till the consignment was completed. Once the\ntransportation consignment was completed, the retention money along with\ntransportation charges ... transportation sector is part of the unorganized\nsector of Indian economy, transactions were usually entered through cash, hence\nthe assessee would receive the retention money in form of cash. Besides, the\ncollection of retention money is a work of huge responsibility therefore, any\nmistake in this respect or loss

SENGHANI AND ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5039/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsenghani & Associates, 808, 8Th Floor Ecstacy Business Park, Jsd Road Mulund West, Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Acafs6377C V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 28(3)(1), Ito, Vashi Railway Station Building, ……………… Respondent Navi Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(1)Section 234BSection 250

deleted. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in taxing INR 7,64,598 being retention money since such amount was already subject to tax in previous year and taxing again would lead to double taxation. Thus, the additions made by Learned ... amount declared in the return of income, the assessee submitted that the same pertains to the income already offered to tax in earlier years, retention money received and advances received towards the project cost. The submission of the assessee explaining the aforesaid difference is as follows: - Sr. Particulars Amount