{"id":63876,"date":"2026-08-05T17:27:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ito-v-harmony-vinimay-p-ltd-2025-123-itr-458-174-taxmann-com-1239-kol-trib-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-05T17:27:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:57:00","slug":"ito-v-harmony-vinimay-p-ltd-2025-123-itr-458-174-taxmann-com-1239-kol-trib-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ito-v-harmony-vinimay-p-ltd-2025-123-itr-458-174-taxmann-com-1239-kol-trib-2\/","title":{"rendered":"ITO v. Harmony Vinimay (P.) Ltd. (2025) 123 ITR 458 \/ 174 taxmann.com 1239 (Kol.)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee, a real estate developer, consistently followed the project completion method and recognised revenue in accordance with Accounting Standard-9. The Assessing Officer rejected the method and computed income under the percentage completion method by applying Accounting Standard-7 and ICDS-III. The Tribunal held that the assessee&#8217;s method had been accepted by the Revenue in the preceding assessment year and there was no change in facts warranting a departure. The Assessing Officer had also wrongly adopted the wholesale value of the entire project, including the co-owners&#8217; share, though revenue was to be divided among all co-owners. As the project ultimately resulted in a loss, the addition made on the percentage completion method was rightly deleted. <strong>(<\/strong>AY. 2018-19).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 145: Method of accounting-Business expenditure-Real estate developer-Project completion method-Percentage completion method-Consistent method of accounting accepted in earlier year-No justification to change method-Addition deleted.[S. 28(i),37(1), Accounting Standard-9.]<\/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-63876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gCg","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63876","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=63876"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63876\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63877,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63876\/revisions\/63877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}