9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 2008-09 is against deleting addition of ₹ 48,16,027/- out of total addition of ₹ 1,00,39,000/-. 4. In appeal of the assessee ground nos. 2 to 4 are against sustaining the addition of ₹ 52,22,973/- out of total addition of ₹ 1,00,39,000/-. 5. Since these grounds are co-related, therefore, they are being disposed off together. 6. Brief facts of the case are similar to the facts involved in the case of Shri Ravi Haldia, Smt. Deepali Haldia and Shri Dinesh Haldia. We have disposed off those cases and brief facts have been discussed in the case of Smt. Deepali Haldia in para 7 to 14.1 at pages 2 to 23 in ITA No. 29/JP/2011 and others of even date. The ld. CIT (A) has also mentioned similar facts in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simultaneous trading additions against the addition on account of excess stock. 11. On account of excess stock, we have already deleted the addition which was made on protective basis. Therefore, this ground does not require any adjudication separately and accordingly the same is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 6 is against sustaining the application of provisions of section 145(3) is also dismissed as on similar facts in other cases this ground has been rejected. 13. Ground No. 7 is against sustaining the application of GP rate of 30% against declared GP rate of 10.98%. 14. Similar issue was involved in all other cases i.e. in case of Shri Ravi Haldia, Smt. Deepali Haldia and Shri Dinesh Haldia where we have directed to apply a reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oup. Accordingly this ground of the assessee is allowed. 23. Remaining ground is against sustaining 10% disallowance of various expenses is rejected as similar ground was rejected in other cases of the same group. 24. Now we will take up the appeal for assessment year 2004-05. 25. First ground is rejected which is against upholding application of provisions of section 145(3) as similar ground was rejected in other cases of the same group. 26. Second ground is against confirming trading addition of ₹ 9,11,038/- made by applying GP rate at 30% as against 10.33% declared by assessee. 27. We are of the view that if a GP rate at 15% is applied then it will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we direct the AO to recalculate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of the assessee is allowed for the year under consideration also. 37. Next issue is against confirming disallowance @ 10% of various expenses is also rejected as similar ground was rejected in the case of other group cases for assessment years 2003-04 and 04-05. 38. Now we will take up the appeal for assessment year 2007-08. 39. First ground is rejected which is against upholding application of provisions of section 145(3) as similar ground was rejected in other cases of the same group. 40. Next issue is against confirming trading addition of ₹ 1,76,838/- made by applying GP rate of 30% as against 10.02%. 41. Similar addition was made in earlier years where we have directed to apply 15% GP rate against 10.2% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
