Revenue Over Time or at a Point in Time (IFRS 15 Explained with Examples)

Revenue over time or at a point in time – When Does Revenue Truly Happen?

Under IFRS 15, revenue is no longer a single accounting moment; it’s a story-line about control and performance.
Every contract asks the same deceptively simple question: Does the customer gain control gradually or all at once?

This judgment decides whether revenue is recognized over time or at a point in time.
The difference shapes profit timing, investor perception, and even governance discussions in audit committees.

From airlines to app developers, each business must trace the same decision path through the three criteria of IFRS 15 § 35.
If none of them apply, revenue waits until a clear hand-over.
But if one applies, income follows the rhythm of work performed.

Let’s walk that path step by step.

The Three Criteria for Revenue Over Time

Case A – The Recurring Service (One Performance Obligation)

It begins with something deceptively simple: a long-term service contract.

A global logistics company signs a two-year facilities-management agreement with ISS to keep its 80 000 m² warehouse near Rotterdam spotless and fully operational. The agreement covers daily cleaning, night-shift sanitation, waste handling, and periodic maintenance of the conveyor belts that carry millions of packages each week.

At first glance, it looks like one service — “keep the building clean and running.”

But IFRS 15 teaches us to look deeper.

Within that single sentence hide several potential performance obligations:

• continuous cleaning,
• regular maintenance,
• ad-hoc repair call-outs, and
• reporting and inspection duties.

The accountant’s task is to decide whether those promises form one combined obligation or several distinct ones. Under § 27–30, services that are highly interrelated and whose value depends on each other are bundled; if the customer can benefit from them separately, they are unbundled.

In this case, the cleaning and maintenance are inseparable. The customer benefits daily as work is performed; if operations stop, the benefit stops. That pattern meets criterion 1 of § 35(a) — the customer simultaneously receives and consumes the service.

Judgement in practice

Progress is measured by inputs — hours worked, litres of cleaning fluid, completed maintenance tasks — because those inputs faithfully represent the pattern of benefit. Straight-line recognition over time would be acceptable only if effort and benefit are uniform throughout the period. In reality, December’s activity spikes; July slows; therefore an input-based measure tells the truth better.

Governance angle

This case is where most service organisations fail documentation. Controllers record hours but rarely explain why the hours depict benefit transfer.

Under IFRS 15 § 123(b), they must demonstrate that progress measurement reflects performance — not just effort. Well-run firms such as ISS or Sodexo capture daily operational KPIs (surface cleaned, equipment availability) and reconcile them to revenue recognition. That linkage is the heartbeat of credible reporting.

Key insight

“Revenue over time” is not about how long the contract lasts — it’s about how the customer experiences value.

In recurring services, value arises the moment the mop touches the floor or the engineer presses “reset.”

Stop performing, and value stops.

That continuous dependency is the purest expression of Criterion 1 — and the reason why recurring service revenue is recognised over time.

Governance insight: Document why the chosen progress method reflects consumption.
For variable workloads, an output measure (e.g. square metres cleaned) may better depict performance.

Case B – The Controlled Asset (Customer’s Property)

When Siemens Energy agrees to overhaul a gas turbine for a regional utility in Germany, the machine never leaves the power station. Every new blade installed, every bearing replaced, instantly enhances an asset the customer already controls.

That single detail changes the timing of revenue completely.
Under Criterion 2 of § 35(b), the contractor’s performance creates or improves an asset that the customer controls while it is built or repaired. Revenue therefore follows progress — recognised over time, not when the job is signed off.

That single detail changes the timing of revenue completely.
Under Criterion 2 of § 35(b), the contractor’s performance creates or improves an asset that the customer controls while it is built or repaired. Revenue therefore follows progress — recognised over time, not when the job is signed off.

At first glance, this seems obvious: the customer owns the turbine, so of course revenue should be spread over time. But IFRS 15 forces a deeper look. What if the contractor removed the turbine and took it to its own workshop? What if the utility had no access during the overhaul? In that scenario, control would pass back to the contractor, and revenue would shift to a point-in-time recognition when the turbine is returned.

Judgement in practice

The practical test is evidence of control. Progress reports signed by the customer’s engineers, inspection certificates, or photos confirming the asset never left the site all show continuous control. Accountants then measure progress by cost-to-cost (input method) or, less often, by restored capacity or megawatts (output method). What matters is whether the chosen measure reflects how the customer receives benefit.

Governance angle

This case separates good reporting from box-ticking.
Many organisations assume that “maintenance equals over time.” It does not — not unless control truly remains with the customer. Audit committees should insist that every project file includes documentation of site control, customer approvals, and evidence that progress measures mirror reality.

For Siemens and peers like GE Vernova or Rolls-Royce Power Systems, this discipline is vital. A turbine overhaul can take months and cost millions; misjudging the boundary between customer control and contractor control can shift revenue by entire quarters.

Key insight

“Customer control” is not about who holds legal title; it’s about who can direct the use and obtain the benefits of the work as it happens. When the contractor’s hands are effectively the customer’s hands, revenue belongs to that same rhythm. Criterion 2 is the quiet rule that underpins heavy industry — from ship repairs and aircraft maintenance to data-centre retrofits and rail-track renewals.

Control can be physical or contractual. Evidence includes site-access logs, inspection approvals, and change-order records.
These support the conclusion that control stayed with the customer.

Case C – The Custom Machine (No Alternative Use)

In a factory outside Lausanne, a Swiss engineering company is building a highly specialised filling line for Nestlé Nespresso. The machine’s dimensions, sensors and robotic arms fit one capsule size only. If Nestlé were to cancel the order halfway through, the manufacturer couldn’t sell the half-finished line to anyone else; it is literally built around the geometry of a single product.

That uniqueness triggers Criterion 3 of § 35(c) — the contractor’s performance creates an asset with no alternative use.
But that alone isn’t enough. IFRS 15 demands a second condition: an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date. In this case, the contract states that Nestlé must pay all costs incurred plus a 12 per cent margin if the project is terminated early. Local Swiss law supports such clauses, so both conditions are met. The result: revenue is recognised over time as the machine takes shape.

Judgement in practice

This is the point where accounting meets law. Many companies assume that any “right to payment” clause is enforceable; in reality, it depends on jurisdiction. In some countries, courts limit compensation to out-of-pocket cost, excluding profit — which would fail IFRS 15’s second test. Before revenue is booked, legal counsel should confirm that the payment right genuinely includes margin.

Another practical issue is progress measurement. For custom builds, a cost-to-cost input method is usually most faithful, because design hours, materials and testing all move in step with value creation. Output measures such as “percentage of machine assembled” can be misleading when the hardest engineering work occurs at the end.

Governance angle

This is where good finance teams earn their reputation. The link between contract law, engineering milestones and accounting entries must be explicit. A CFO should be able to trace every euro of recognised revenue to documented progress, and every progress milestone to contractual rights. Internal audit should periodically verify that the “no alternative use” assessment remains valid — for example, that a supposedly unique design hasn’t since been standardised for another customer.

Firms such as Tetra Pak, Bosch Packaging Technology and GEA Group have all faced this balancing act: highly customised machinery built inside long-term client relationships where commercial reality, legal enforceability and accounting policy must align.

Key insight

Criterion 3 is the most nuanced of all three tests. It asks not only what you build, but for whom you can build it, and what happens if the deal ends prematurely. When a company designs something that exists only because one customer wanted it — and the contract guarantees fair payment if stopped — revenue rightly follows the curve of creation. The asset itself may be unique, but the reasoning is universal.

Criterion 3 links finance and legal work: enforcement is a legal question, not an accounting guess.
If law allows termination without profit, the contract fails the test and revenue must shift to a point in time.

Case D – The Design-and-Build Project (Bundled Obligations)

Across the river outside Seville, Ferrovial leads a consortium to design and construct a new wastewater treatment plant. The city’s infrastructure agency issues a single, fixed-price contract covering design, procurement, civil works and commissioning. From the first drawings to the last concrete pour, everything is interdependent — the plant cannot be designed without knowing the soil, and it cannot be built without adapting the design.

Under IFRS 15 § 27–30, such interdependent promises form one combined performance obligation. The work has no alternative use, because it is tied to a single site, and the contract provides an enforceable right to payment if the municipality cancels. Both elements of Criterion 3 (§ 35(c)) are satisfied. The result: revenue is recognised over time, reflecting continuous performance rather than a single hand-over.

Judgement in practice

Progress is typically measured through certified milestones: completion of foundations, mechanical installation, testing, commissioning. Each milestone is verified by the city’s independent engineer. Those certificates become audit evidence — the bridge between technical progress and accounting recognition.

But the real challenge lies in aligning the engineering schedule with the financial calendar. Design may run ahead of budget, procurement may lag, weather may delay works. Each shift affects revenue curves and margin forecasts. IFRS 15 demands that companies update progress estimates at each reporting date, not just year-end. When the project value runs into hundreds of millions, small timing differences can move entire quarterly results.

Governance angle

This is where the “tone at the top” determines credibility. Well-governed construction groups maintain strict segregation between project control and financial reporting. Project managers certify completion; finance converts that evidence into revenue. If one department influences the other, the risk of premature revenue recognition grows.

Ferrovial, Hochtief, BAM Infra and other major contractors learned this after the early-2000s project write-downs that shook investor trust. Today, their boards expect documentation that links every euro of recognised income to physical progress visible on site. The milestone log is not just an operational tool — it is the financial memory of the project.

Key insight

Criterion 3 is often called “the construction test,” but its logic extends far beyond infrastructure. Any project that integrates design and delivery into a single, site-specific outcome fits the same pattern — from chemical plants to wind farms and airport terminals. The test is not whether the project is large, but whether the asset is custom-made and legally protected by a right to payment. When those conditions hold, revenue flows with the construction timeline. When they do not, it must wait for delivery.

Integrated contracts rely on professional judgement to ensure progress reports, engineering certificates and financial data tell the same story.
Audit committees should see a matrix linking technical progress to revenue recognition.

Case E – The Hybrid Product (Hardware + Software + Support)

A large university hospital signs a multi-element agreement with SAP Health Analytics for its digital patient-data environment.
The €9 million contract bundles three parts:

1. A perpetual licence for on-premise analytical software;
2. Cloud hosting and cybersecurity monitoring;
3. Three years of 24/7 technical support and version upgrades.

The sales team sold it as one integrated solution, but IFRS 15 requires more precision.
Under § 27–30, each distinct promise that can provide benefit on its own must be treated as a separate performance obligation.
Here, the software licence is one, the cloud hosting another, and the support services a third.

The next question is: when does the customer obtain control of each component?
The licence transfers control at activation — an instantaneous event.
The hosting and support deliver value every hour the system is up.
That means:

• Software licence → IFRS 15 Point in time (Criterion not met).
• Hosting and support → IFRS 15 Revenue Over time (Criterion 1 § 35(a) satisfied).

The total price must now be split among those obligations using stand-alone selling prices as IFRS 15 § 31–32 prescribes.
The accounting outcome is striking: about one-third of the contract revenue appears immediately; the rest drips steadily into income statements over three years.

Judgement in practice

Multi-element arrangements demand data discipline.
Costing systems must track delivery by obligation, not by invoice.
If SAP upgrades the software midway through the period, it has to reassess whether the change adds a new performance obligation (a modification under § 20–21) or merely updates the existing one.
Failing to re-evaluate can distort both revenue and backlog figures.

For auditors, evidence lies in customer logs: uptime reports, help-desk tickets, patch deliveries, and renewal notices.
Each proves that the customer continuously receives and consumes the service — the essence of Criterion 1.

Governance angle

Hybrid contracts expose cultural weaknesses in many tech companies.
Sales executives push for large up-front deals; finance must defend the principle that revenue follows control, not cash.
Boards should ensure that incentive structures align with IFRS 15’s timing: recognising revenue too early might win a bonus but risks a restatement.

The best-governed technology groups — SAP, Microsoft, Oracle, ServiceNow — have learned to educate their commercial teams in the language of performance obligations.
They publish clear policies explaining which deliverables are recognised over time and which at a point.
That transparency builds investor trust far more effectively than aggressive growth curves ever could.

Key insight

Criterion 1’s logic shines here: revenue belongs to the rhythm of customer benefit, not the rhythm of billing.
Hybrid contracts are not accounting traps; they are governance tests.
When a company can clearly explain how each stream of value earns its way onto the income statement, it demonstrates not only compliance with IFRS 15 but maturity in understanding its own business model.

Hybrid arrangements show why IFRS 15 replaced rules with principles.
It demands that management understands how customers actually derive value.
Allocation and timing must reflect economic substance, not billing pattern.

Case F – Public–Private Partnership (Long-Term Concession)

On the outskirts of Lyon, a consortium led by Vinci Concessions and Eiffage signs a 30-year agreement with the French government to design, build, finance and operate a new toll bridge over the Rhône. The arrangement combines two lifecycles in one contract: first, the heavy construction phase; then, decades of operation and maintenance funded by annual availability payments.

At first glance, the contract feels monolithic — one project, one customer, one timeline. But IFRS 15 compels a deeper look. Are the promises distinct? Yes: construction and operation serve different economic purposes. Are they separable? Also yes: the bridge could, in theory, be operated by another party once built. Each stage therefore becomes its own performance obligation.

Now the real judgement begins.

• During construction, the asset is highly specific — it cannot be sold or repurposed elsewhere. That meets the “no alternative use” test.
• The concession agreement guarantees payment for work performed to date, even if the government cancels the project — an enforceable right to payment.
• Together, those satisfy Criterion 3 (§ 35 c). Construction revenue is recognised over time as the bridge rises from the riverbank.
• During operation, the government receives and consumes the service as it happens — the bridge is available, traffic monitored, safety ensured. That fits Criterion 1 (§ 35 a). Revenue again flows over time, usually measured by performance indicators such as uptime, incident response, or user throughput.

Only the eventual transfer or sale of residual rights at the end of the concession would be a point-in-time event.

Judgement in practice

Long-term concessions stretch the logic of IFRS 15 to its limit.
They span generations of management, changes in legislation, inflation adjustments, and shifting political climates. A payment clause that seems enforceable today may become debatable tomorrow.
The accountant’s role is to document the rationale — not once, but repeatedly over the life of the contract.

Construction progress is usually measured by cost-to-cost; operational performance by an output method tied to contractual service levels. Each year, both must be re-evaluated. A single change in government policy or environmental law can trigger a reassessment of enforceability and timing.

More about Judgement in this blog: IFRS 15 Significant Judgments and Estimates.

Governance angle

Public–private partnerships have produced some of the most famous accounting controversies in Europe.
In the early 2000s, infrastructure groups were accused of front-loading revenue during construction while under-providing for maintenance costs later.
The solution was not more rules, but better governance.
Today, companies such as Vinci, Ferrovial, and ACS maintain dedicated “revenue committees” where finance, legal, and project leaders review each concession annually.
They document which IFRS 15 criterion applies to each stage and why the assumptions remain valid.

This transparency turns complex projects into understandable stories.
When an investor reads that 80 per cent of revenue arises from availability payments recognised over time, they immediately see both stability and risk. That clarity is precisely what IFRS 15 was meant to achieve.

Key insight

Criterion 3, supported by Criterion 1, shows how accounting mirrors infrastructure reality: the bridge is built once but trusted for decades.
Revenue recognition must respect both acts — creation and stewardship.
When a company explains that story clearly, it builds not just a bridge across a river but a bridge of credibility with the market.

PPP arrangements combine Criterion 3 (no alternative use + payment right) with Criterion 1 (continuous service).
Governance demands periodic re-assessment throughout the concession life as laws or tariffs change.

Decision Trail Summary

Read about a IFRS 15 Topic close to the timing of revenue in our blog: Contract Modifications under IFRS 15 – Practical Examples and Journal Entries

Governance Checklist

Want to know what IFRS 15.123(b) Significant judgements says, it’s in the link.

Analysing Real-World Companies – How IFRS 15 Plays Out in Practice

By now the logic of IFRS 15’s three criteria is clear. But how does it appear in real financial statements? The following examples show how companies in very different industries translate the same principles into their own realities — from aircraft manufacturing to fast-food franchising, from semiconductor equipment to digital advertising.

Bombardier – Long-Cycle Manufacturing and the Weight of Delivery

Performance obligations:
Bombardier’s aircraft contracts are textbook examples of complex performance obligations. Each aircraft sale typically involves:

• the physical aircraft itself,
• optional equipment or cabin configurations,
• post-delivery support and training, and
• in some cases, future upgrades or spare-parts commitments.

Timing:
For commercial and business jets, control usually transfers at a point in time — on customer acceptance and legal delivery. That’s because the asset (an aircraft) is highly specific but not controlled by the customer during manufacture. However, certain defence or government programmes can qualify for over-time recognition under Criterion 3 (no alternative use + right to payment).

Why it matters:
In the past, Bombardier faced criticism (see press discussions around 2014-2016) for recognising revenue too early on delayed aircraft programmes. Under IFRS 15, the company’s policies had to tighten: each major milestone — assembly, testing, delivery — now ties directly to transfer of control, not management optimism.

Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time

Lesson:
Long-cycle manufacturers must constantly prove that their “right to payment” is truly enforceable and that progress reflects what the customer controls or can benefit from — not what internal project schedules suggest.

Read the latest performance highlights of Bombardier.

Google (Alphabet) – Services Consumed the Moment They’re Delivered

Performance obligations:
Google’s revenue streams illustrate Criterion 1 perfectly. Its core business — selling ad impressions — creates benefit for customers (advertisers) the instant those ads are served. Other obligations include cloud-service subscriptions, YouTube Premium memberships, and app-store fees.

Timing:

• Advertising: recognised over time, literally by the second, as impressions or clicks occur.
• Cloud and subscription services: also over time, since the user receives continuous access.
• Hardware sales (Pixel phones, Nest devices): point in time, on shipment or delivery.

Governance angle:
The company’s disclosures show how IFRS 15 forces segmentation: revenue is reported separately for “Google Search & Other,” “YouTube Ads,” “Google Cloud,” and “Other Bets.” Each reflects a different timing of control transfer.

Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time

Controversy (as discussed publicly):
Some analysts debate whether Google’s traffic-acquisition-cost (TAC) arrangements with partners represent distinct performance obligations or reductions of revenue. IFRS 15 requires judgment: if Google acts as an agent, it shows net revenue; if as principal, gross. The outcome shapes billions of turnover — a reminder that “over time” doesn’t mean “without judgement.”

Also read about this on Yahoo Finance: Why the world’s biggest search engine has to pay for traffic to its site.

McDonald’s – Franchising as a Living Example of Criterion 1

Performance obligations:
McDonald’s doesn’t just sell burgers; it licenses its brand, operating system, and supply infrastructure to franchisees worldwide. Its main obligations are:

• ongoing right to use intellectual property (brand and know-how),
• supply of property or equipment leases,
• and sometimes direct company-operated restaurant sales.

Timing:
Under IFRS 15, franchise revenue for the right to use the brand is recognised over time because the franchisee simultaneously receives and consumes the right as it is provided. Equipment sales and initial fees, however, are recognised at a point in time when delivered.

Governance dimension:
The split between recurring royalty income and one-off sales is crucial to investors: royalties create predictable “over-time” streams; equipment margins fluctuate. McDonald’s detailed its approach in post-2018 reports, showing how each fee type satisfies Criterion 1 or not.

Why it teaches well:
A single global brand, replicated in thousands of contracts, demonstrates IFRS 15’s flexibility — one principle can handle both hamburgers and high finance.

Tesla – When Delivery Defines Recognition

Tesla’s contracts involve:

1. sale of vehicles,
2. energy-generation and storage systems, and
3. software features such as Full Self-Driving (FSD) capability.

Timing:

• Vehicle sales: point in time on delivery to the customer.
• Energy projects: often over time, especially large solar or grid-storage installations where the asset is built on the customer’s property (Criterion 2).
• FSD software: over time — revenue deferred until features are released or activated, since the customer hasn’t yet obtained the promised functionality.

Public debate:
Analysts have discussed Tesla’s accounting for regulatory-credit sales and FSD deferrals. The company clarifies that deferred revenue on its balance sheet represents obligations still to be met — an application of IFRS 15’s core principle: revenue only follows transfer of control, not cash receipt.

Governance takeaway:
For high-growth tech manufacturers, disclosure around deferred revenue is as important as recognised revenue. It signals future performance obligations and investor patience.

Read this post in the r/stocks community on reddit.com: Deferred FSD Revenue Recognition May Have Boosted Q1 Profits Significantly.

Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time

Toyota – Over Time Hidden Inside a Car Sale

Performance obligations:
Toyota’s business seems purely “point in time”: vehicles shipped, dealers pay, revenue booked. But IFRS 15 uncovers more layers:

• Extended warranties and service contracts,
• Connected-car software and telematics subscriptions,
• Fleet maintenance agreements.

Timing:

• Car sale: point in time (transfer of title).
• Service contracts and connected services: over time (Criterion 1).
• Loyalty programmes or dealer incentives: treated as separate performance obligations or variable consideration.

Insight:
Even for traditional manufacturers, over-time elements are growing as vehicles become digital platforms. Toyota’s financial reports now distinguish “service revenue” and “software-related income,” acknowledging this shift from product to platform.

Lesson:
IFRS 15 doesn’t divide industries; it divides mindsets — between those who see one-off transactions and those who see continuous relationships.

ASML – When One Machine Represents a Multiyear Relationship

Performance obligations:
ASML’s lithography systems are among the most complex machines ever built. A single EUV tool involves design, assembly, installation, and subsequent service agreements. The main obligations are:

• delivery of the machine,
• installation and acceptance testing,
• after-sales upgrades and maintenance.

Timing:

• Delivery and installation: control typically passes at a point in time upon acceptance by the semiconductor manufacturer.
• Service and upgrade contracts: over time, as the customer receives ongoing optimisation benefits.

Why it fascinates analysts:
Because an EUV system can take months to assemble and ship, analysts often wonder whether revenue could be recognised progressively. Under IFRS 15, ASML treats the tool as a single deliverable with customer control passing only when installation and testing are complete. That conservative approach aligns with Criterion 3: until the customer can use it, ASML retains control and bears risk.

Governance strength:
ASML’s disclosures explicitly explain this reasoning. By aligning technical milestones with accounting milestones, the company has built extraordinary investor trust — a model of how IFRS 15 disclosure can become a strategic asset rather than a compliance chore.

From Principle to Pattern

Across these six examples, IFRS 15 proves its versatility.

Company	Dominant Criterion	Revenue Timing	Teaching Point
Bombardier	3 – Right to payment & no alternative use	Over time / point at delivery	Long-cycle manufacturing risk
Google	1 – Simultaneous benefit	Over time	Continuous consumption of service
McDonald’s	1 – Simultaneous benefit	Over time	Intangible rights consumed daily
Tesla	Mix of 1 & 3	Over time / point	Deferred revenue shows future duty
Toyota	Mix of 1 & point	Point for car / over time for services	Even old industries gain new rhythms
ASML	3 then 1	Point for delivery / over time for service	Align technical acceptance with control

Closing Reflection – Seeing the Rhythm of Control

Across every example — from Bombardier’s assembly lines to Google’s ad servers, from McDonald’s franchises to ASML’s cleanrooms — the question is the same:
Who controls value as it emerges?

When the answer is “the customer, continuously,” revenue flows over time.
When it is “the supplier, until transfer,” revenue waits for the moment of delivery.

Understanding that distinction transforms IFRS 15 from a rule into a way of seeing business itself.
Good governance, strong documentation, and transparent disclosure turn that insight into credibility.
And credibility, ultimately, is the most valuable performance obligation any company can fulfil.

Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time

FAQs – Revenue Over Time or at a Point in Time (IFRS 15)

Revenue over time or at a point in time

Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time Revenue over time or at a point in time