{"id":16672,"date":"2021-04-14T11:37:51","date_gmt":"2021-04-14T06:07:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/veolia-india-p-ltd-v-dcit-2020-184-itd-528-delhitrib\/"},"modified":"2021-04-14T11:37:51","modified_gmt":"2021-04-14T06:07:51","slug":"veolia-india-p-ltd-v-dcit-2020-184-itd-528-delhitrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/veolia-india-p-ltd-v-dcit-2020-184-itd-528-delhitrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Veolia India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 528 (Delhi)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee was offered a construction contract pertaining to rehabilitation and implementation of water supply which consisted of three phases, namely, Study Phase, Rehabilitation Phase and Operation and Maintenance (O&amp;M) Phase for a period of five years.\u00a0 AO alleged short recognition of contract revenue and observed that entire contract value including revenue from (O&amp;M) phase had to be considered while calculating percentage of completion method on ground that it was a composite contract and, third phase could not be considered separately. Tribunal held that\u00a0 the assessee had raised separate invoices for O&amp;M phase on a regular basis and same had been duly accounted in years in which it was received-Whether since O&amp;M phase could not be a part of construction activity as O&amp;M phase involved supply of water to residence giving connections and monitoring connections which was clearly a post construction activity, amount allotted for O&amp;M phase could not be included in determining percentage of completion method in determination of profit out of construction activities. (AY. 2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rehabilitation and implementation of water supply-Percentage of contract method  adopted by the assessee is held to be justified. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4kU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16672"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16673,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16672\/revisions\/16673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}