TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. Therefore, no addition, like one made by the A.O. is not justified. The ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. On a wrong premise by following the reasons given by the A.O. and by not considering the contention of the assessee. In out considered opinion the first time imposition of Entry Tax of huge amount of ₹ 9,69,454/- as per assessee Paper Book page 18, which fact has not been denied or disputed by the revenue, is a good ground and factor to justify small fall in the G.P. Rate. Thus delete the entire addition Interest received from F.D.Rs. and N.S.Cs. placed with Government while obtaining contract from Government is required to be assessed as income from business. Since this interest income is business income which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in second appeal against the sustained additions. 3. At the time of hearing, the appellant s authorized representative, Shri U.C. Jain, the ld. Advocate chose not to press Ground No. 1. Therefore, this ground stands dismissed as not pressed. 4. Facts of second ground are that the A.O. has disallowed portion of expenditure claimed in the businesses carried under the following names: a. M/s L.R. Filling Station, Jaisalmer of ₹ 30,000/- b. M/s Naveen Tractor, Jaisalmer of ₹ 1,00,000/- Both these disallowances are made on account of non-maintenance of proper vouchers/bills for various expenses and because full record of the expenses did not tally with the claim of the assessee. However, A.O. has made a lumpsum disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter rejecting the books of account on various grounds stated in the earlier part of this order, the A.O. has applied a net profit rate of 12.50% further subject to depreciation and interest to third parties. Although the assessee has not disputed the rejection of books of account but has vehemently contested addition made and sustained in this account. It was submitted that there cannot be uniformity in the margin of profit from the year-after-year as the rate of profit earned by the assessee depended on various factors including huge increase in the turnover. It was argued that even after a fall in the gross profit rate the net profit rate is better in the year, so no addition is warranted. He also attributed fall in gross profit rate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RATE NET PROFIT N.P. RATE 2005-06 146100246.00 14934095.00 10.22% 8610081.00 5.89% 2006-07 70388982.00 7521542.00 10.69% 4636778.00 6.59% 2007-08 40246198.00 6155118.00 15.00% 2236893.00 5.56% 2008-09 114390319.00 10653914.00 09.32% 7561682.00 5.72% From the above it becomes evident that there is slight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied. The ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. On a wrong premise by following the reasons given by the A.O. and by not considering the contention of the assessee. In out considered opinion the first time imposition of Entry Tax of huge amount of ₹ 9,69,454/- as per assessee Paper Book page 18, which fact has not been denied or disputed by the revenue, is a good ground and factor to justify small fall in the G.P. Rate. The decisions on which the ld. A.R. has relied are incorporated in the earlier part of this order. All these decisions support the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we order to delete the entire addition of ₹ 26,25,393/- made and allow ground Nos. 3 and 4 of this appeal. 10. The facts apropos ground No. 5 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As per the assessee these FDRs or NSCs were purchased on account of business exigency for the purpose of obtaining contract and the same are pledged with the PWD Authorities. Therefore, the interest income has to be treated as a part of business receipts. But as per A.O. the interest income has to be treated as income from other source . The ld. CIT(A) has also sustained addition of ₹ 14,16,842/-. In this regard ld. A.R. Shri Jain has placed his reliance on the decision of this very Bench rendered in the case of Jain Construction Co. On the other hand ld. D.R. has relied on a decision of Jaipur Bench. 12. After hearing both sides we are of the considered opinion that the rule of consistency demands us to follow the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
