CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. 216 CTR (SC) 345

382 ITR 630High Court2016#5897 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 145(1)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 2(7)section 132(2)section 23asection 132(1)(a)section 211section 153(a)(1)retention moneysection 250(1)section 45(2)project completion methodsection 145(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. 216 CTR (SC) 345

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed” (emphasis supplied) 54. In the case of Paras Bulidtech India (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) (refer Page 502-508 of Paper Book Vol-2), the question arose during assessment proceedings whether POCM (as per AS-7) should be applied to the assessee’s case. It was submitted by the assessee that POCM was not applicable to it as it was a developer and not a contractor. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and, by applying POC…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed” (emphasis supplied) 54. In the case of Paras Bulidtech India (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) (refer Page 502-508 of Paper Book Vol-2), the question arose during assessment proceedings whether POCM (as per AS-7) should be applied to the assessee’s case. It was submitted by the assessee that POCM was not applicable to it as it was a developer and not a contractor. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and, by applying POC…

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed” (emphasis supplied) 54. In the case of Paras Bulidtech India (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) (refer Page 502-508 of Paper Book Vol-2), the question arose during assessment proceedings whether POCM (as per AS-7) should be applied to the assessee’s case. It was submitted by the assessee that POCM was not applicable to it as it was a developer and not a contractor. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and, by applying POC…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed” (emphasis supplied) 54. In the case of Paras Bulidtech India (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) (refer Page 502-508 of Paper Book Vol-2), the question arose during assessment proceedings whether POCM (as per AS-7) should be applied to the assessee’s case. It was submitted by the assessee that POCM was not applicable to it as it was a developer and not a contractor. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and, by applying POC…

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed” (emphasis supplied) 54. In the case of Paras Bulidtech India (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) (refer Page 502-508 of Paper Book Vol-2), the question arose during assessment proceedings whether POCM (as per AS-7) should be applied to the assessee’s case. It was submitted by the assessee that POCM was not applicable to it as it was a developer and not a contractor. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and, by applying POC…

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…mann.com 27 (Del HC) ; decision of Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd reported in 440 ITR 343 (Kar.) ; and decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd reported in 382 ITR 630 (Del). The ld NFAC also gave a categorical finding of reversal of excess revenues, which was booked in earlier years of ₹609185.90 lakhs which was claimed as a one time claim of deduction during the year under consideration due to shift in method of accounting from POCM to CCM was worked out by the assessee on the basis of recognized principles,…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL vs. RELIABLE REALTECH PVT LTD, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ouncements dwell upon the issue under consideration and are reproduced as under:- (i) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had examined the applicability of the Completed Contract Method vis-à-vis POCM method in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 382 ITR 630 and held as under:- "4. The background to the filing of the present appeals is that the Appellant Assessee is engaged in the business of real estate as a developer. The Assessee either purchases land in its own name or gets the power of attorney from the land owner in case the property is owned by another party so as to carry out activities of de…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL vs. DWARKADHIS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4807/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…. Following the principles of res judicata as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295 and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd 382 ITR 630, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 9. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and read the relevant operative part. 10. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the ld. CIT(A). 11. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The method of a…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam Gokula House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 PAN NO : AGDPS5886M APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021) Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathiker…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam Gokula House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 PAN NO : AGDPS5886M APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021) Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathiker…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam Gokula House, ACIT M.S. Ramaiah Main Road Central Circle-2(1) Vs. Mathikere Bangalore Bangalore 560 054 PAN NO : AGDPS5886M APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 (Arising out of ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021) Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2016-17 Sri Mathiker…

DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAXWORTH INFRASQWTRUCTRURE P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…sessee has been consistently following the method of completed contract and which has been accepted by the Revenue. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paras buildtech India private limited versus CIT reported in 382 ITR 630, DCIT Vs M/s Sabh infrastructure Ltd dated 07/01/2015 ( ITA No. 111/2014 and 113 /2014), CIT Vs Manish Buildwell private limited reported in 245 CTR 397 and other decisions. The assessee filed a chart of completed contract method followed consistently and recognised by the income tax department as under: A.Y. Comulative Sale(Rs.) Method of accou…

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha , ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ce on the following judgments/orders of Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal: (i) Manjusha Estates (P) ltd vs CIT, 393 ITR 644 (Guj) (ii) CIT vs. Principal Officer, Hill View Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,384 ITR 451 (P&H) (iii) Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd vs CIT, 382 ITR 630 (Del) (iv) Ashoka Hi-tech Builders Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, (ITA Nos.121/Ind/2016 & 686/Ind/2016) A.Y. 12-13 & 13-14 dated 3.8.2018 (v) Bhoomi Construction Projects vs ACIT, 7 NYP TTJ 1472 (Mum) (vi) Haware Constructions Pvt Ltd vs ITO, (ITA No.5601/Mum/2009 & ors) order dated 5.8.2011 (vii) Unique Enterprises vs ITO, (ITA No.5109/Mum/2008) order da…

ANIDHI IMPEX P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2041/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Anidhi Impex Pvt Ltd Vs Ito-4(1)(3), Mumbai C/O A Porwal & Associates 201, Rajshila, 597, Jss Road Near Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400 002 Pan : Aaeca7748J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 282Section 68

…n accountant of the company were vitiated as accountant was not principal officer of company nor was there any material to show that he had been authorised by company to accept any notice. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Chetan Gupta (2016) 382 ITR 630 (Del) has considered an identical issue and after analysing provisions of section 282(1) read with order 5 Rule 12 of CPC and order 3 Rule 6 of CPC held that notice required to be served u/s 148 has to be mandatorily served upon assessee in accordance with section 282(1) of the Act. The court further held that where prior to completion of asses…

VINAYKA ASSOCIATES,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/RAN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-013

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Paul, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 145Section 145(3)

…ion method in the absence of finding that completion contract method distorting book results of the assessee. He referred to page 74 of paper book, wherein, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt Ltd vs CIT (2016) 382 ITR 630 (Del) is filed and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilahari Investment Pvt Ltd. (supra) held as under; ‘19. The settled legal position as far as Section 145 of the Act is concerned is that it is not open to an AO to reject the accounts of an Assessee unless he comes to…

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTALAM COLONIZERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: P.C Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Mukesh Verma (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(2)

…n the case of CIT Vs. Bilahari Investment Private Ltd. 299 ITR 1 (SC) has decided the issue. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of the hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 382 ITR 630 (Delhi). 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available record and gone through the order of the authorities below. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court under the identical facts in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another held that it is a settled legal position as per section…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.

ITA/159/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2016

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 145(1)

…oned at pages 212 to 215 of the Paper Book.” 13. It is evident from the above discussion that the assessee followed the project completion method. This Court has in its decision in Paras Buildtech India P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 382 ITR 630 (Delhi) held that the project completion method is a known and recognized mode of accounting. It is also held that this mode was approved as a proper method, which identified receipt of income or revenue only upon the completion of the contract. This Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd.…