MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

3\nand 4 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.581/Rjt/2024 A.Y 2016-17]\nGround No.4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's ground regarding non-\nproviding of cross-examination of persons belonging to searched party.\n[This is ground No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2017-18,\nGround No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.5

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

3\nand 4 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.581/Rjt/2024 A.Y 2016-17]\nGround No.4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's ground regarding non-\nproviding of cross-examination of persons belonging to searched party.\n[This is ground No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/2024_A.Y.2017-18,\nGround No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground No.5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH, RAJKOT

3\nand 4 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.581/Rjt/2024 A.Y 2016-17]\nGround No.4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's ground regarding non-\nproviding of cross-examination of persons belonging to searched party.\n[This is ground No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2017-18,\nGround No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground

MUKESH MANEKCHAND SHETH,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT-ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, RAJKOT., RAJKOT

3\nand 4 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.581/Rjt/2024 A.Y 2016-17]\nGround No.4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting assessee's ground regarding non-\nproviding of cross-examination of persons belonging to searched party.\n[This is ground No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.545/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2017-18,\nGround No.5 in assessee's appeal in ITA No.546/Rjt/2024 A.Y.2018-19, Ground

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: 3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2, , GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH vs. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI JEWELLERS, GANDHIDHAM - KUTCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue isdismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-2 Vs. M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers Gandhidham. Shop No.1, Plot No.68 Bba (Sough) Gandhidham-Kutch. 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023

3. Amount of excess cash found in shop Rs. 1,47,506/- 4. Amount of expenses incurred for shop renovation Rs. 7,20,600/- Total Rupees Rs.20,090,073/- It has been clearly understood by all the partners that the firm shall be responsible for payment of the tax on above business income of the firm and also be abide