TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year2007-08 against order dated 8.3.2011 of ld CIT(A)-25, Mumbai. 2. In Ground Nos.1 & 2 of appeal, assessee has disputed the order of ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,59,000 by rejecting assessee's claim of bad debt. 3. The assessee claimed bad debt of Rs. 1,59,000. Assessee stated that he had given advance payment fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vance was made. Further, there is no invoice or any correspondence to substantiate the contention of the assessee. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the contention of ld A.R. Hence, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) and reject the ground Nos.1 & 2 taken by the assessee. 5. In Ground Nos.3 & 4 of appeal, assessee has disputed the order of ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,66....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el World and submitted that assessee has not received any interest from Rajvaibhav Enterprises (P) Ltd.,. He submitted that merely on the basis of AIR information and without any evidence that assessee has received any interest from it, hence the amount could not be added to the income of the assessee. Ld D.R. merely relied on orders of authorities below. 8. We have considered submissions of ld r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2,66,916 by allowing ground Nos.3 & 4 of appeal taken by the assessee. 10. In Ground Nos.5 & 6 of appeal, assessee has disputed the confirmation of addition of Rs. 75,000 made by the AO on account of low G.P. on estimate basis. 11. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. 12. We observe that AO made this addition merely on the ground t....