{"id":61445,"date":"2026-06-27T12:26:17","date_gmt":"2026-06-27T06:56:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/maharashtra-state-road-development-corporation-ltd-v-ito-2025-215-itd-532-mum-trib-2\/"},"modified":"2026-06-27T12:26:17","modified_gmt":"2026-06-27T06:56:17","slug":"maharashtra-state-road-development-corporation-ltd-v-ito-2025-215-itd-532-mum-trib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/maharashtra-state-road-development-corporation-ltd-v-ito-2025-215-itd-532-mum-trib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 532 (Mum) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee was awarded a contract for the collection of toll operation, maintenance and improvement of the Mumbai-Pune section of NH-4 for a period of 15 years for a consideration of Rs. 918 crores. Assessee has shown net consideration, reducing the estimated expenditure, as per the agreement.\u00a0 Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, had considered only the income of the assessee but had failed to consider cost estimated to be incurred towards maintenance and improvement. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had not considered the cost estimated to be incurred towards maintenance and improvement, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was to be deleted. Tribunal also held that if income was to be recognised on a gross basis, then reduction towards estimated expenditure was also to be allowed. (AY. 2006-07)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 145: Method of accounting-Estimation of income-Income recognition-Toll contractor awarded with a 15-year toll collection and maintenance contract-Only net consideration as income instead of gross receipts and expenses-Assessing Officer was not right in taxing gross income and ignoring estimated maintenance costs.[S. 4, 5] <\/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_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fZ3","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61445","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=61445"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61445\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61446,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61445\/revisions\/61446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}