Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7). However, in paragraph 88 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court held that where there is no uncertainty regarding the amount of consideration to be derived from rendering services, income should be recognised at the time of receipt, relying on para 12 of AS-9. This interpretation is erroneous, as AS-9 provides that income should not be recognised only where there is uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of consideration. The Hon'ble High Court, therefore, interpreted AS-9 in a manner directly contrary to its express provisions and ignored the mandate of the standard. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Coral Electronics (P) Ltd. (274 ITR 336) had categorically held that AMC income should be offered to tax over the period of the contract. In the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, the Hon'ble High Court (in para 96 of the decision) declined to apply Coral Electronics on the ground that, in that case, the contract contained a clause for cancellation and :-5-: ITA No: 3499/Chny/2025 refund of charges for the unexpired period, whereas the assessee's contracts for that year did not contain such a clause. For the year under appeal, however, the AMC agreements do contain an explicit provision for cancellation and proportionate refund. Consequently, the very basis on which Coral Electronics was distinguished no longer survives and the ratio of that judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present year. Accordingly, the method of accounting consistently followed by the Assessee by spreading the AMC receipts over the period of the contract deserves to be accepted. Further, in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, the Hon'ble Madras High Court also relied upon the provisions of service tax law to hold that the entire income accrued at the time of raising the invoice (para 110) and thus concluded that the AMC charges were taxable in the year of receipt. The taxing point under the Service tax laws cannot be imported to Income Tax as under Income Tax accrual of income depends on revenue recognition as per AS-9. Further while doing so, the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the consequential and settled principle that if the entire income is brought to tax upfront, the estimated expenditure expected to be incurred in relation to such income must also be allowed as a deduction, as laid down in Calcutta Co. Ltd. (37 ITR 1), Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. (314 ITR 62, SC) and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Further, appropriate credit ought to be given for income already offered to tax in subsequent years. The ld.AR for assessee also submitted that the ld.CIT(A) did not apply Section 43CB of the Act in the present case. The said section is an insertion by the Finance Act, 2018 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2017 to give statutory authority to ICDS IV, in view of some court decisions not accepting ICDS. In the assessee's case, the AMC involves rendering of maintenance services through an indeterminate number of acts, as the number of service calls during the contract period is uncertain and cannot be predetermined. At the same time, the services are rendered over a clearly defined period, namely the tenure of the AMC. Accordingly, in terms of the statutory mandate of section 43CB of the Act, which is applicable to the assessment year under appeal, recognition of AMC revenue over the period of the contract on a straight-line basis is legally correct. And so, :-6-: ITA No: 3499/Chny/2025 the ld.AR for assessee submitted that, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 is not applicable to the present assessment year, in view of the subsequent statutory intervention by way of section 43CB. The ld.AR for assessee, filed a paperbook in support of their arguments containing, section 43CB of the Act, explanatory notes to the provisions of Finance Act of 2018, ICDS IV relating to revenue recognition, AMC contract from 2020-21 to 2022-23, cancellation form and AMC for 2009-10.

8. It seems appropriate to first delve into Section 43CB of the Act since the ld.AR for the assessee argues that the said provisions is applicable in this instant case. The Income-tax Act has undergone a significant amendment by insertion of section 43CB by the Finance Act, 2018 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2017 to give statutory authority to ICDS IV, in view of some court decisions not accepting ICDS. Section 43CB reads as under:

43CB. (1) The profits and gains arising from a construction contract or a contract for providing services shall be determined on the basis of percentage :-7-: ITA No: 3499/Chny/2025 of completion method in accordance with the income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS) notified under sub-section (2) of section 145:

"The new section 43CB has been inserted in the Income-tax Act to provide that profits arising from a construction contract or a contract for providing services shall be determined on the basis of percentage of completion method except for certain service contracts, and that the contract revenue shall include retention money, and contract cost shall not be reduced by incidental interest, dividend and capital gains".

10. In the assessee's case, the AMC involves rendering of maintenance services through an indeterminate number of acts, as the number of service calls during the contract period is uncertain and cannot be predetermined. At the same time, the services are rendered over a clearly defined period, namely the tenure of the AMC. Accordingly, in terms of the statutory mandate of section 43CB, which is applicable to the impugned Assessment Year, recognition of AMC revenue over the period of the contract on a straight-line basis is legally correct.

11. Moreover, the said provision came into effect from 01.04.2017 and the assessment year under consideration is 2022-23. Therefore, irrespective of any :-8-: ITA No: 3499/Chny/2025 debate concerning retrospective operation, it remains an undisputed position that Section 43CB of the Act squarely governs the assessee's case for the impugned assessment year. In such circumstances, the authorities below erred in law and on facts, in merely relying upon the earlier judicial decision rendered in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10, without undertaking an independent examination of the statutory framework applicable to the present year.