https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71256 The Tribunal dismissed both appeals by the Department, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of ad hoc payments received for extra excavation work. The Tribunal found the payments were provisional and not income for the year under consideration. It concluded that the apportionment method used by the AO was incorrect and that the disputed amount recoverable in excess of the fixed amount could not be treated as income due to the assessee lacking a legal claim over it. en-us Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:48:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71256 The Tribunal dismissed both appeals by the Department, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of ad hoc payments received for extra excavation work. The Tribunal found the payments were provisional and not income for the year under consideration. It concluded that the apportionment method used by the AO was incorrect and that the disputed amount recoverable in excess of the fixed amount could not be treated as income due to the assessee lacking a legal claim over it. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71256