A recent decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai highlights why this method matters and how strictly it must be followed. In the case involving Supreme Mega Construction LLP (developer of the Supreme Elenor project in Khar West), the tax department tried to add ₹6.33 crore to the builder’s income, claiming excess costs were claimed. The Tribunal fully rejected this and upheld the builder’s approach as correct under ICAI guidelines.

What is the Percentage Completion Method?

Real estate projects in India, especially in cities like Mumbai, are long-term (often 3–7 years or more). Buyers pay in installments as construction progresses, and agreements for sale are signed early.

Under the Percentage Completion Method (recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India – ICAI in its Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions, revised 2012):

• Revenue (from sales) and costs are recognised proportionately each year.
• Builders calculate the percentage of completion based on costs incurred so far versus total estimated project costs (or other reliable measures like physical progress).
• Only the portion linked to sold area (usually in square feet) is booked as revenue and cost in that year’s Profit & Loss account.
• Unsold portion stays as work-in-progress (inventory) in the balance sheet.
• Key rule: Marketing, general admin, and selling expenses are not part of project/construction costs — they are expensed directly in the P&L.

This method matches income with the effort put in each year, giving a fair picture of performance instead of showing zero profit until the project ends (which could be misleading).

ICAI’s Guidance Note makes this mandatory when the project resembles a construction contract — meaning long duration, reliable cost estimates, and sale of incomplete units.

The Supreme Elenor Case: A Practical Example

Supreme Mega Construction LLP was developing Supreme Elenor — a project with 75 residential flats and total saleable area of 61,346 sq. ft.

In AY 2022-23 (FY 2021-22):

• Agreements for 36 flats (29,479 sq. ft. — about 48% of total area) were executed.
• Total cost incurred till date: ₹64.77 crore (including opening work-in-progress from earlier years + current construction expenses).
• Cost allocated to sold flats: ₹31.12 crore (proportionate to area sold, debited to trading account).
• Remaining cost: ₹33.65 crore carried forward as closing work-in-progress.

The builder followed ICAI rules precisely — allocating based on sq. ft. sold (not number of flats, since flats vary in size), excluding indirect/marketing expenses from construction costs, and including prior-year costs.

The Assessing Officer (tax department) disagreed and added ₹6.33 crore back to income, wrongly assuming:

• The builder claimed ₹37.42 crore as cost (by incorrectly adding indirect + marketing expenses).
• Allocation should be based on number of flats (36/75), not area.
• Opening work-in-progress could be ignored.
• Marketing/admin costs should be part of construction cost.

Why the ITAT Ruled in Favour of the Builder

On 19 January 2026, ITAT Mumbai Bench “B” (Members: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member, and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal (ITA No. 1891/MUM/2025) and deleted the addition.

Key reasons:

• The builder never claimed excess — audited books clearly showed only ₹31.12 crore as cost of sold area.
• Allocation must be by area (sq. ft.), not flat count — flats aren’t uniform in size.
• Opening WIP (past costs) is integral and must be included.
• Indirect expenses (₹1.74 crore) and marketing/selling costs (₹6.11 crore) are not construction costs per ICAI Guidance Note — they go straight to P&L.
• The method was consistent, followed ICAI Guidance Note, and matched precedents like Trident Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT).

The Tribunal called the AO’s approach factually wrong and inconsistent with standard accounting principles.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers and Other Builders in Mumbai

• For buyers: When a builder follows POCM correctly, their financials are more transparent — showing real progress and profits yearly rather than hiding everything until completion.
• For builders: It protects against arbitrary tax additions during scrutiny. Many Mumbai projects face similar disputes; sticking to ICAI rules (area-based allocation, excluding non-construction costs) avoids big demands.
• Tax angle: Since no specific Income Tax rule overrides, profits as per ICAI-compliant books form the basis for taxable income.

This order reinforces that Mumbai’s real estate sector can rely on the Percentage Completion Method — as long as it’s applied properly — without fear of sudden large tax hits.

Parties in the Case

• Appellant: ACIT Circle-22(1), Mumbai
• Respondent: Supreme Mega Construction LLP (PAN: ABSFS7343H), Khar West, Mumbai
• Project: Supreme Elenor
• Appeal: ITA No. 1891/MUM/2025, AY 2022-23

This ruling serves as a useful guide for developers, accountants, and investors navigating Mumbai’s complex real estate accounting landscape.

Also Read: Cancellation Loss Allowed – But Only in the Right Year: Key ITAT Ruling for Mumbai Builders

The post How Mumbai Builders Report Profits: The Percentage Completion Method Explained – With a Real Case Study appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case, Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. vs. Circle-2(3)(1) (ITA No. 3447/MUM/2025, Assessment Year 2012-13), was pronounced on January 22, 2026. It deals with two major issues that affect almost every Mumbai builder who has faced project delays, buyer cancellations, or department jurisdiction changes during the 2011–2015 period.

The Background: What Went Wrong with the Sea Vista Project?

Nirman Realtors was developing a premium residential project called Sea Vista in Mahalaxmi, one of Mumbai’s most sought-after locations near the racecourse and close to the Arabian Sea. Like most real estate companies at the time, the builder followed the Percentage Completion Method — recognising revenue and profit as construction progressed, even before handing over flats.

In the financial year 2010–11 (Assessment Year 2011–12), the company had received bookings/advances from three buyers:

• Ashwini Pathak
• Meenal Amit Israni
• Ruthai International

It recognised about 30% of the sale value as revenue in its books for that year.

However, the project faced significant delays due to issues under the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with the land owner/partner, Effile Properties Pvt. Ltd. The buyers eventually cancelled their bookings, and the builder refunded their advances.

In the next financial year (2011–12, Assessment Year 2012–13), the company reversed the previously booked sales and claimed a loss/deduction of ₹1,84,86,824 (approx. ₹1.85 crore) under the head “Other Allowances”.

The Assessing Officer completely disallowed this claim, saying there was insufficient proof of genuine cancellations. The matter reached the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and finally the ITAT.

Big Relief No. 1: Old Scrutiny Assessments Are Safe After Jurisdiction Change

Many builders feared that assessments completed during the Income Tax Department’s cadre restructuring (around 2014–15) were invalid because the new Assessing Officer did not issue a fresh notice under Section 143(2).

In this case:

• The original scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) was validly issued on 22 September 2014 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-8(2), Mumbai (when he had jurisdiction).
• Later, due to cadre restructuring, the case moved to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-10(3)(1), Mumbai.
• The new officer issued a fresh enquiry notice u/s 142(1) and completed the assessment — but did not issue another 143(2) notice.

The builder argued the entire assessment was void, relying on an earlier Bangalore ITAT decision (Golf View Homes Ltd.).

ITAT’s clear ruling: No fresh 143(2) notice is required after an administrative jurisdiction transfer (cadre restructuring), if the original notice was validly issued within time by an officer who had jurisdiction at that moment. The transferee officer can continue the proceedings from where they left off.

This part of the order is a major relief for builders with pending appeals from AY 2011-12 to 2015-16. It means thousands of old scrutiny assessments are not automatically bad in law just because of a department shuffle.

Big Relief No. 2 (With a Catch): Cancellation Loss Is Allowed — But Only in the Correct Year

The ITAT accepted the principle that if revenue was recognised earlier under the percentage completion method and the booking is later genuinely cancelled with refund of money, the builder can reverse that revenue and claim the corresponding loss in the year the cancellation actually happens.

However, the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that not the entire ₹1.85 crore was allowable in AY 2012-13.

From the project ledgers submitted:

• Reversal for Meenal Amit Israni (₹95,85,000) was booked on 31 March 2012 → eligible in AY 2012-13.
• Reversal for Ashwini Pathak (₹67,50,000) was booked on 10 May 2012 → technically falls in next year.
• Reversal for Ruthai International (₹93,00,000) was booked on 31 March 2014 → much later.

More importantly, the sales ledger for Sea Vista already showed net sales of ₹5,38,65,000 after deducting some cancellations. If the Profit & Loss Account already reflected net figures, allowing an extra deduction would result in double benefit (claiming the same loss twice).

ITAT’s direction: The matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer to verify:

• Whether the Profit & Loss Account showed gross sales (₹6,39,00,000) before any reversals, or already net of cancellations.
• The exact year each reversal was accounted for.
• Genuineness of cancellations (ledgers, refund proofs, arbitration orders if any).
• Allow the eligible portion only — ensuring no double deduction.

The ground was allowed for statistical purposes — meaning the builder can get relief after proper verification, but not the full amount automatically.

What This Means for Mumbai Builders and Homebuyers

For developers:

• Cancellation losses are real and allowable — but timing is critical. Book reversals in the exact financial year the cancellation and refund occur.
• Keep strong documentation: cancellation letters, refund bank statements, buyer communications, JDA-related orders.
• Old scrutiny cases from the cadre restructuring period are largely protected — a big relief for appeals still pending.

For homebuyers: This order does not directly affect you, but it shows how builders manage the financial hit when projects get delayed and bookings are cancelled. If your booking was cancelled and money refunded, the builder may be able to reduce taxable income only if they follow these strict timing and proof rules.

Bottom Line

The ITAT Mumbai order brings much-needed practical guidance for the real estate sector on two evergreen issues: validity of old assessments after department changes, and tax treatment of booking cancellations due to project delays. While the builder did not get full relief on the ₹1.85 crore claim, the ruling protects the assessment process and confirms that genuine reversals are deductible — provided they are correctly timed and documented.

Developers with similar disputes should immediately review their pending appeals and accounting entries in light of this decision.

Also Read: MahaRERA Rules Developer Cannot Forfeit Entire Booking Amount Upon Cancellation

The post Cancellation Loss Allowed – But Only in the Right Year: Key ITAT Ruling for Mumbai Builders appeared first on Square Feat India.