ITAT Ranchi Bench

YASIN ANSARI,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

YASIN ANSARI,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

YASIN ANSARI,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

INDU THAKUR,RANCHI vs ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

M/S SHAMBHULAL & CO.,SIMDEGA vs ITO, WARD-2(5), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

M/S SHAMBHULAL & CO.,SIMDEGA vs ITO, WARD-2(5), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

M/S SHAMBHULAL & CO.,SIMDEGA vs ITO, WARD-2(5), RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

AWADH KISHORE,RANCHI vs ITO WARD-1(1),, RANCHI

the Id CIT(A) was delayed by five and half months. He prayed that the delay be condoned and matter be restored to the file of the Id CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 4. Upon consideration the submission of Id AR of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee had given reasonable cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Id CIT(A). We also notice that the assessee has not been able to produce the evidences before the AO, for which, as

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), CHAIBASA, CHAIBASA vs TARUN KANTI GHOSH, JAMSHEDPUR

RAJENDRA NONIYA,KEDLA COLLIERY vs ITO WARD 2(3) RAMGARH, SRIJEE SADAN

us that the assessee wants to withdraw the present appeal since it has opted to avail benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and in its submission, the assessee has also enclosed copies of Form No. 1 issued by the Pr. CIT of Income Tax, approving the applications filed by the assessee under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It is stated that the assessee does not wish to pursue the present appeal since their application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 has been approved by the Income

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs CORE MINERALS , CHENNAI

S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

ORIENT RESOURCES,CHENNAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

K.D.SINGH POULTRIES PRIVATE LTD ,RANCHI vs ITO WD-1(5), RANCHI

SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

BABY KUMARI,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed her bank account and the copy of I.T.return of her husband Shri Amrit Charan Singh and explained the source of investments appearing in the name of the assessee. It was submitted that the amount of investment was mostly out of the amount given to her by her husband. However, the Assessing Officer without appreciating the said fact passed the assessment order u./s.144 and made the addition. It was the submission that during the course of first ap

SRI AMIT PRATAP SINGH,BOKARO vs ITO, WARD 3(1), BOKARO

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

GURINDER KAUR,RANCHI vs ITO, WARD-1(3), RANCHI

the Id CIT(A). In view of this, in the interest of justice, the order of the Id CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to his file for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is also directed that the Id CIT(A) to send the notices at the correct address given by the assessee in Form No.35. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2025. Sd/- (

GOPAL AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs ITO WARD -1(3), DHANBAD, DHANBAD

BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)