Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai Allows KPMG Unbilled Revenue Write-off for AY 2015-16

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12326
Case Name
KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2015-16
Advertisement

KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal adjudicated cross appeals filed by KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeals arose from orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 09.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s appeal concerned disallowance relating to reversal of opening accrued/unbilled income and billing done in earlier years, while the Revenue challenged deletion of a disallowance under section 40(a)(i) concerning professional fees paid to non-resident KPMG member firms. The order was pronounced on 12.08.2026.

On the assessee’s appeal, KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. had filed its return on 29.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,25,370/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 25.07.2017. The assessee rendered management consultancy services in Finance, Environment Audit, Investment and Information Technology. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 28.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.30,73,92,848/- after various additions and disallowances.

During assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed unbilled revenue of Rs.32,38,60,326/- as at 31.03.2015. The assessee explained that it followed a rational accounting method based on working hours and allocation of sales according to the total contract value, with billing being undertaken on achievement of milestones. It stated that unbilled revenue of Rs.2,22,16,683/- had been reversed without raising invoices on clients. The AO did not accept the explanation, observing that the assessee had not substantiated the basis for reversal or produced correspondence showing that clients would not pay the amounts. The AO accordingly added Rs.2,22,16,683/- to income. The CIT(A) sustained the disallowance.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,757

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.