Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
Facts:
The taxpayer was a Dutch company. The taxpayer was engaged in execution of a contract awarded by the Government of India. The contract pertained to the construction of breakwaters, dredging and land reclamation. As per the contract, 5% of the amount was to be held as retention money. When retention money reached 2% of the contract price, the taxpayer could ask for release of 1% of the retention money by furnishing bank guarantee.
The taxpayer received certain payments by way of release of retention money by furnishing bank guarantee. The taxpayer did not offer the same for taxation in the year of release. It contended that the payments would be taxable in the year when the taxpayer satisfactorily completed the work and removed the defects. However, the AO held that the payments had accrued to the taxpayer and accordingly, taxed the same.
The CIT(A) held that since the taxpayer did not have an absolute right over the payments, they were not taxable.
Held:
The Tribunal held as follows: As long as performance guarantee remains and is enforceable without notice to the taxpayer, the retention money received cannot be recognised as income and have to be excluded while computing the income until successful completion of the contract and expiration of the guarantee.