-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.929 OF 2008 The CIT-16 : Appellant v/s M/s. Sure Rest Developers : Respondent Mrs. Anuradha Mane for Appellant Mr. K. Shivram i/b KSA Legal for respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 24.9.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. . By the above appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the following question of law. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in law in quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax and holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of revenue, disregarding the fact that the estimated expenses of Rs. 37.26 lac claimed by the assessee are in violation of the prescribed -2- accounting standard A S-7, r w s 145 of the I T Act 1961? . We have perused the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT act 1961 dt. 28.3.2006, order u/s 263 of IT Act dt. 31.7.2006 and the order passed by the ITAT dt. 24.1.2008 and particularly paragraph 7 wherein the Tribunal has categorically held that the Project Completion Method is recognised by the Accounting Standard (AS)7, prescribed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and over and above our court has repeatedly recognising the said method in various decisions and over and above the Tribunal found as per the conclusions and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount co. as referred to in paragraph 7. In view thereof we do not find any merit in the above appeal. There is no substantial question of law. In view thereof appeal stands dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)