https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301457 The Tribunal remanded both disputed additions for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's books, audit report and supporting material. For the contract receipts, the 8% profit estimation was sent back to the Assessing Officer since the reliance on section 44AD required reconsideration on the evidence and after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim. For the second issue, the claim that the receipts were agricultural income under section 2(1A) was also restored for fresh decision because the supporting material had not been adequately verified. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes only. en-us Fri, 21 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2022 11:21:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301457 The Tribunal remanded both disputed additions for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's books, audit report and supporting material. For the contract receipts, the 8% profit estimation was sent back to the Assessing Officer since the reliance on section 44AD required reconsideration on the evidence and after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim. For the second issue, the claim that the receipts were agricultural income under section 2(1A) was also restored for fresh decision because the supporting material had not been adequately verified. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes only. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301457