The assessee has shown the advances to three persons/parties of Rs10096320/- AO disallowed the interest claim of Rs. 8,75,543/- on the ground that the assessee has taken loan on one hand and given interest free advances to these parties. Assessee explained 1.Rs. 25,00,000/- was given to M/s. More Mobile & Support Pvt. Ltd. as a security for doing the businessThe said amount has been shown by the assessee in the Balance Sheet as security deposit and, therefore, once the said amount is paid in connection with the business of the assessee then the disallowance of interest expenditure by the AO is not justified. 2.The second amount of Rs. 74,96,320/- was given to M/s. The Mobile Store Services Ltd. and shown as Trade advance. The assessee has also shown purchases of Rs. 90,55,296/- from 01.04.2012 to 20.06.2012. Therefore, having regard to the volume of purchases made from the said company, the advance of Rs. 74,96,320/- for purchases of goods would not attract any disallowance on account of interest expenditure. 3 .of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Dr. Pushpendra Garg who is a close relative of the assessee, was claimed from the assessee’s own interest free funds available in the shape of capital Thus, the ratio of Madhav Prasad Jatia’scase[1979 (118) ITR 200 (SC) is that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Ground 2addition of Rs. 70,50,000/- made under section 68 for unexplained credit on account of unsecured loans.assessee has taken unsecured loans from six parties OF Rs 7050000 We note that all the six creditors have produced the confirmations, returns of income as well as their relevant record from the books of account to show that the transactions of loans given to the assessee were duly recorded in the books of account and through banking channel The assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of the lenders. Incasethese persons did not appear for personal examination or same did not respond to the 133(6) notices, it cannot be said that these were unexplained cash credits. Thus the addition of Rs. 70,50,000/- made u/s 68 is directed to be deleted and this Ground of appeal is allowed Ground 3 he AO noted that the assessee has declared GP @ 0.92% as against 1.08% in the immediately preceding year. Accordingly, the AO adopted the GP declared by the assessee in the preceding year and made an addition of Rs. 4,49,453/-. Thus it is clear that there is three-fold increase in the turnover of the assessee for the year under consideration in comparison to the immediately preceding yearHence in the facts and circumstances of thecase, when the variation in the GP is insignificant and there is an increase in the turnover of the assessee of more than three times from Rs. 9,60,00,000/- to Rs. 28,69,00,000/- then there is no justification of making addition by applying the GP rate of earlier year. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, we delete the addition made by the AO on this account.