Tribunal Sends Back 4.66 Cr Deferred Revenue Case Due to Documentation Gaps:

Tribunal Sends Back 4.66 Cr Deferred Revenue Case Due to Documentation Gaps

Tribunal finds incomplete evidence in support of deferred revenue claim under AS-9; remands case for de novo adjudication

ITAT Remands 4.66 Cr Revenue Deferment Claim of GSRDC to AO

authorMeetu KumaridateJun 30, 2025
Last update on Jun 30, 2025
Tribunal Sends Back 4.66 Cr Deferred Revenue Case Due to Documentation Gaps The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO found a discrepancy between the total receipts in Form 26AS of Rs. 14.30 crore and the income reported in the Profit & Loss Account being Rs. 9.63 crore. Due to Larsen & Toubro's (L&T) financial limitations, the assessee clarified that it had postponed recognition of income under AS-9 for three projects, citing uncertainty in ultimate collection. Agreements with L&T for deferment were produced. However, the AO rejected the explanation on the ground that the assessee failed to submit necessary supporting evidence, including copies of bills raised, details of amounts deferred, and reconciliation of deferred income. CIT(A) Held: CIT(A) upheld AO's decision that the assessee did not provide evidence of uncertainty in collection and did not meet the requirements of AS-9 in confirming the disallowance. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
ITAT Quashes Reassessment Beyond 3 Years for Lack of Proper Sanction
Main issue: In the absence of specific proof of revenue collection uncertainty and without providing comprehensive supporting documentation, was the assessee justified in postponing income recognition under AS-9?
Tribunal Rejects 14A Addition, Orders Fresh Review on TP Interest
ITAT Held: According to the ITAT, the assessee didn't provide complete details to back up its claim of deferred revenue. The Tribunal found that important documents, such as bill-wise details, deferred revenue breakup, and proper justification as per AS-9, were missing. Although the deferment agreements were filed, the lack of reconciliation and evidence made it hard to confirm the validity of the deferment. To ensure justice, the case was sent back to the AO for a fresh look. The assessee was asked to submit all necessary supporting documents during the new assessment proceedings. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…