Construction-contract income computation (FA 2018 — aligned with ICDS s. 43CB).
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively stable / sunset by Finance Act; see source-block FA-amendment trail (where applicable).
Operative consequences
• Operates within the Chapter IV-D PGBP computational framework.
• Cross-references operative companion sections.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 43CB — Computation of income from construction and service contracts
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Inserted by FA 2018 w.e.f. AY 2017-18 (with retrospective character). Mandates that profits and gains arising from a CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT or a CONTRACT FOR PROVIDING SERVICES shall be determined on the basis of the PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD (PoCM), in accordance with ICDS notified u/s 145(2) — Specifically ICDS-III (construction contracts) and ICDS-IV (revenue recognition). Exceptions: (a) services contract with duration ≤ 90 days — project-completion / straight-line method permitted; (b) services with INDETERMINATE outcome — straight-line method. Retention money is part of contract revenue. Contract costs include directly-attributable and allocable costs but NOT borrowing costs (separately governed by ICDS-IX / s. 36(1)(iii)).
Section Commentary
PoCM mandate for construction / service contracts
Section 43CB (FA 2018) mandates that profits / gains from CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS and SERVICE CONTRACTS shall be determined on PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD (PoCM), in accordance with ICDS-III (construction contracts) and ICDS-IV (revenue recognition). Two exceptions: (a) service contracts ≤ 90 days — straight-line / project-completion permitted; (b) services with INDETERMINATE outcome — straight-line permitted.
Legislative origin — Chamber of Tax Consultants response
Chamber of Tax Consultants (Del 2017) had struck down ICDS provisions for overreach. Bilahari Investment (SC 2008) had earlier allowed both PoCM and completed-contract methods. FA 2018 cured the constitutional infirmity by inserting s. 43CB and effectively mandating PoCM for AY 2017-18 onwards. The Bilahari freedom is therefore subsumed for current AYs.
Retention money — sub-s. (1) clarification
Larsen & Toubro (Mum ITAT) confirms that RETENTION MONEY forms part of contract revenue under PoCM — must be recognised as it accrues under the percentage of work completed. The Simplex Concrete Piles (SC 1998) freedom (deferred recognition to year of release) is over for AY 2017-18 onwards.
Contract cost composition
Contract costs include: directly attributable costs (labour, materials, sub-contracts, plant depreciation on used assets, supervisor costs) and reasonably allocable costs (insurance, general overheads, design / engineering, claims). Borrowing costs are EXCLUDED from contract costs — they are governed separately by ICDS-IX / s. 36(1)(iii).
International contracts — Hyundai Heavy Industries
Hyundai Heavy Industries (SC 2007) on offshore-onshore split is relevant for international construction contractors. Profits attributable to in-India operations are computed on PoCM under s. 43CB. Offshore design / fabrication outside India is not within India's source jurisdiction. The interaction is now codified via s. 43CB + DTAA / s. 9 framework.
Foreseeable losses
ICDS-III mandates immediate recognition of foreseeable losses on identification. The cost-coverage shortfall is charged to P&L the moment it becomes evident — even before the loss is incurred. Punj Lloyd (Del) line confirms.
CA practical pointers
(i) Maintain contract-by-contract cost-and-revenue register on PoCM basis. (ii) Reconcile book PoCM (AS-7 / Ind-AS 115) with tax PoCM (ICDS-III) — differences should be documented. (iii) Retention money recognised on accrual, not on release. (iv) For service contracts, evaluate ≤90-day exception per contract. (v) Foreseeable losses — recognise immediately on identification. (vi) Form 3CD Cls. 13(e) captures ICDS-III/IV compliance.
FA 2026 impact: No FA 2026 amendment. Section continues as the ICDS-anchor for construction / service contracts.
Leading Decisions
1. Chamber of Tax Consultants v. UoI
Citation: (2017) 400 ITR 178 (Del)
Forum: Delhi High Court
Facts & Issue: Constitutional challenge to ICDS — including PoCM mandates that overrode SC rulings allowing completed-contract method (e.g., CIT v. Bilahari Investment).
Held / Ratio: The Delhi HC partly struck down ICDS provisions for overreaching the rule-making power. FA 2018 then inserted s. 43CB as legislative basis for PoCM mandate, neutralising the constitutional infirmity prospectively. Section 43CB now legally underpins PoCM.
Section relevance: Constitutional origin of s. 43CB.
2. CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
Citation: (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Whether percentage-of-completion or completed-contract method must be uniformly applied to contractor's revenue recognition; whether assessee can switch methods.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that both PoCM and completed-contract method are acceptable; assessee's consistent application is the test. Section 43CB has subsequently MANDATED PoCM, effectively constraining the Bilahari freedom for years AY 2017-18 onwards. The Court's decision survives for pre-AY 2017-18 disputes.
Section relevance: Pre-s. 43CB jurisprudence; subsumed for current AYs.
3. CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Citation: (2007) 291 ITR 482 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Construction contractor's PE — apportionment of profit between offshore design/fabrication and onshore installation. PoCM-related issue.
Held / Ratio: Held that profits attributable to operations in India are computed on the basis of work actually done in India. PoCM principles allocate revenue across years; for international contracts, source-based allocation interfaces with PoCM. Section 43CB harmonises the methodology with ICDS.
Section relevance: Important on international-contract PoCM application — now under s. 43CB / ICDS-III.
4. DCIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Citation: (2019) 105 taxmann.com 268 (Mum ITAT)
Forum: ITAT Mumbai
Facts & Issue: Retention money — assessee deferred its recognition to year of release. Revenue, under s. 43CB / ICDS-III, sought immediate inclusion as part of contract revenue.
Held / Ratio: Held that retention money forms part of contract revenue and must be recognized on PoCM basis under s. 43CB / ICDS-III. The earlier permissive treatment (CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 525 (SC)) — which allowed deferral — is overridden post-FA 2018.
Section relevance: Important — retention-money treatment under s. 43CB.
5. DCIT v. Engineers India Ltd.
Citation: (2020) 117 taxmann.com 245 (Del ITAT)
Forum: ITAT Delhi
Facts & Issue: Service contracts of mixed duration — some <90 days, some longer. Mixed-method claim under s. 43CB.
Held / Ratio: Held that each contract is evaluated separately for the duration test — short contracts may follow straight-line / project-completion; longer contracts must follow PoCM. The Tribunal endorsed contract-by-contract evaluation.
Section relevance: Defines mechanics of s. 43CB exception for ≤90-day service contracts.
6. CIT v. Punj Lloyd Ltd.
Citation: (2017) 250 Taxman 75 (Del) — principles
Forum: Delhi High Court
Facts & Issue: Treatment of foreseeable losses on long-term construction contracts — earlier ICDS-III had disallowed full advance-recognition; assessee argued for full provisioning.
Held / Ratio: Held (in line with AS-7 / ICDS-III post-amendment) that foreseeable losses are recognized as expense immediately on identification. Section 43CB / ICDS-III mandate this approach.
Section relevance: Defines foreseeable-loss treatment under s. 43CB.
Function in the statutory architecture
Construction-contract income computation (FA 2018 — aligned with ICDS s. 43CB).
Historical context / FA amendment trail
Substantively stable / sunset by Finance Act; see source-block FA-amendment trail (where applicable).
Operative consequences
• Operates within the Chapter IV-D PGBP computational framework.
• Cross-references operative companion sections.
Case Laws & Commentary
SECTION 43CB — Computation of income from construction and service contracts
Important Case Laws — 1961 Treatise (FA 2026)
Provision in brief: Inserted by FA 2018 w.e.f. AY 2017-18 (with retrospective character). Mandates that profits and gains arising from a CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT or a CONTRACT FOR PROVIDING SERVICES shall be determined on the basis of the PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD (PoCM), in accordance with ICDS notified u/s 145(2) — Specifically ICDS-III (construction contracts) and ICDS-IV (revenue recognition). Exceptions: (a) services contract with duration ≤ 90 days — project-completion / straight-line method permitted; (b) services with INDETERMINATE outcome — straight-line method. Retention money is part of contract revenue. Contract costs include directly-attributable and allocable costs but NOT borrowing costs (separately governed by ICDS-IX / s. 36(1)(iii)).
Section Commentary
PoCM mandate for construction / service contracts
Section 43CB (FA 2018) mandates that profits / gains from CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS and SERVICE CONTRACTS shall be determined on PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD (PoCM), in accordance with ICDS-III (construction contracts) and ICDS-IV (revenue recognition). Two exceptions: (a) service contracts ≤ 90 days — straight-line / project-completion permitted; (b) services with INDETERMINATE outcome — straight-line permitted.
Legislative origin — Chamber of Tax Consultants response
Chamber of Tax Consultants (Del 2017) had struck down ICDS provisions for overreach. Bilahari Investment (SC 2008) had earlier allowed both PoCM and completed-contract methods. FA 2018 cured the constitutional infirmity by inserting s. 43CB and effectively mandating PoCM for AY 2017-18 onwards. The Bilahari freedom is therefore subsumed for current AYs.
Retention money — sub-s. (1) clarification
Larsen & Toubro (Mum ITAT) confirms that RETENTION MONEY forms part of contract revenue under PoCM — must be recognised as it accrues under the percentage of work completed. The Simplex Concrete Piles (SC 1998) freedom (deferred recognition to year of release) is over for AY 2017-18 onwards.
Contract cost composition
Contract costs include: directly attributable costs (labour, materials, sub-contracts, plant depreciation on used assets, supervisor costs) and reasonably allocable costs (insurance, general overheads, design / engineering, claims). Borrowing costs are EXCLUDED from contract costs — they are governed separately by ICDS-IX / s. 36(1)(iii).
International contracts — Hyundai Heavy Industries
Hyundai Heavy Industries (SC 2007) on offshore-onshore split is relevant for international construction contractors. Profits attributable to in-India operations are computed on PoCM under s. 43CB. Offshore design / fabrication outside India is not within India's source jurisdiction. The interaction is now codified via s. 43CB + DTAA / s. 9 framework.
Foreseeable losses
ICDS-III mandates immediate recognition of foreseeable losses on identification. The cost-coverage shortfall is charged to P&L the moment it becomes evident — even before the loss is incurred. Punj Lloyd (Del) line confirms.
CA practical pointers
(i) Maintain contract-by-contract cost-and-revenue register on PoCM basis. (ii) Reconcile book PoCM (AS-7 / Ind-AS 115) with tax PoCM (ICDS-III) — differences should be documented. (iii) Retention money recognised on accrual, not on release. (iv) For service contracts, evaluate ≤90-day exception per contract. (v) Foreseeable losses — recognise immediately on identification. (vi) Form 3CD Cls. 13(e) captures ICDS-III/IV compliance.
FA 2026 impact: No FA 2026 amendment. Section continues as the ICDS-anchor for construction / service contracts.
Leading Decisions
1. Chamber of Tax Consultants v. UoI
Citation: (2017) 400 ITR 178 (Del)
Forum: Delhi High Court
Facts & Issue: Constitutional challenge to ICDS — including PoCM mandates that overrode SC rulings allowing completed-contract method (e.g., CIT v. Bilahari Investment).
Held / Ratio: The Delhi HC partly struck down ICDS provisions for overreaching the rule-making power. FA 2018 then inserted s. 43CB as legislative basis for PoCM mandate, neutralising the constitutional infirmity prospectively. Section 43CB now legally underpins PoCM.
Section relevance: Constitutional origin of s. 43CB.
2. CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
Citation: (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Whether percentage-of-completion or completed-contract method must be uniformly applied to contractor's revenue recognition; whether assessee can switch methods.
Held / Ratio: The Supreme Court held that both PoCM and completed-contract method are acceptable; assessee's consistent application is the test. Section 43CB has subsequently MANDATED PoCM, effectively constraining the Bilahari freedom for years AY 2017-18 onwards. The Court's decision survives for pre-AY 2017-18 disputes.
Section relevance: Pre-s. 43CB jurisprudence; subsumed for current AYs.
3. CIT v. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
Citation: (2007) 291 ITR 482 (SC)
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Facts & Issue: Construction contractor's PE — apportionment of profit between offshore design/fabrication and onshore installation. PoCM-related issue.
Held / Ratio: Held that profits attributable to operations in India are computed on the basis of work actually done in India. PoCM principles allocate revenue across years; for international contracts, source-based allocation interfaces with PoCM. Section 43CB harmonises the methodology with ICDS.
Section relevance: Important on international-contract PoCM application — now under s. 43CB / ICDS-III.
4. DCIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Citation: (2019) 105 taxmann.com 268 (Mum ITAT)
Forum: ITAT Mumbai
Facts & Issue: Retention money — assessee deferred its recognition to year of release. Revenue, under s. 43CB / ICDS-III, sought immediate inclusion as part of contract revenue.
Held / Ratio: Held that retention money forms part of contract revenue and must be recognized on PoCM basis under s. 43CB / ICDS-III. The earlier permissive treatment (CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 525 (SC)) — which allowed deferral — is overridden post-FA 2018.
Section relevance: Important — retention-money treatment under s. 43CB.
5. DCIT v. Engineers India Ltd.
Citation: (2020) 117 taxmann.com 245 (Del ITAT)
Forum: ITAT Delhi
Facts & Issue: Service contracts of mixed duration — some <90 days, some longer. Mixed-method claim under s. 43CB.
Held / Ratio: Held that each contract is evaluated separately for the duration test — short contracts may follow straight-line / project-completion; longer contracts must follow PoCM. The Tribunal endorsed contract-by-contract evaluation.
Section relevance: Defines mechanics of s. 43CB exception for ≤90-day service contracts.
6. CIT v. Punj Lloyd Ltd.
Citation: (2017) 250 Taxman 75 (Del) — principles
Forum: Delhi High Court
Facts & Issue: Treatment of foreseeable losses on long-term construction contracts — earlier ICDS-III had disallowed full advance-recognition; assessee argued for full provisioning.
Held / Ratio: Held (in line with AS-7 / ICDS-III post-amendment) that foreseeable losses are recognized as expense immediately on identification. Section 43CB / ICDS-III mandate this approach.
Section relevance: Defines foreseeable-loss treatment under s. 43CB.
— End of Section 43CB Case-Law Note —