ITAT Ranchi Judgments — 2019

Judgments from the Ranchi bench in 2019

Showing 40 of 298 orders. Use the months below for the rest.

• Shri Shiv Shanker Prahladka, Surat vs DCIT Cir-3, Ranchi
  ITA 179/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68 by providing evidence such as PAN cards, Income Tax Returns of lenders, and proof of repayment of loans with interest. The payment of interest and repayment of the loan indicated the commerciality and bona fides of the transactions.

• M/S Manavta, Jamtara vs CIT Expemption, Patna
  ITA 146/RAN/2017[17-18]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2019Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the objects of the trust should be examined at the time of granting registration under section 12AA, not the application of income. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's rejection based on the genuineness of transactions was premature.

• Sanjay Kumar, Hazaribag vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Hazaribag
  ITA 351/RAN/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

  The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to decide the issue on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

• Shri Ramjanki Tapovan Mandir, Ranchi vs ITO Exemption Ward, Ranchi
  ITA 332/RAN/2018[0]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019Dismissed

  The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of registration, finding that the trust deed was altered against the founder's wishes and the sale of trust property for development was not genuine. The assessee's grounds were found to be devoid of merit.

• Shri Navneet Modi, Ranchi vs DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 105/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• M/S Vikas Samities, Jamshedpur vs CIT Exemption, Ranchi
  ITA 356/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

• M/S Vikas Samities, Jamshedpur vs CIT Exemption, Ranchi
  ITA 355/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, effective from 01.06.2015, is prospective. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

• M/S Tenughat Emta Coal Mines Ltd., Ranchi vs ITO, Ward-3(2), Ranchi
  ITA 56/RAN/2015[07-08]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was new material before the AO. However, the interest income earned on funds inextricably linked to setting up the business should be capitalized and set off against pre-operational expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.

• Hemant Kumar Verma, Lohardaga vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Ranchi
  ITA 238/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

  The Tribunal held that for the commercial space and duplex, where substantial payments were made before the amendment of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and registration occurred during the relevant assessment year, the amended provision was not applicable. However, for the flat, where payment and registration occurred within the assessment year, the addition was confirmed.

• Shri Navneet Modi, Ranchi vs DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in confirming the additions of sundry creditors. It was noted that the purchases, sales, and net profit declared by the assessee were accepted, and the addition of creditors without disputing the purchases was incorrect. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

• Sunita Adukia, Ranchi vs DCIT Cir-2, Ranchi
  ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019Partly Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the activity of construction and sale of flats was not an adventure in the nature of trade and the income should be treated as long-term capital gain. The assessee was also held eligible for deduction under Section 54F.

• Smt. Saroj Rai, Ranchi vs ACIT Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 64/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• Dr. Jaya Narayan Naik vs The Joint C.I.T
  ITA 250/RAN/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

  The Tribunal restored the Rs. 26 lakh capital gains deposit issue to the AO for fresh verification, as the initial deposit was transferred to a fixed deposit account without clear proof of it being a capital gains account. The Rs. 3 lakh claim for housing board advance was dismissed as insufficient for exemption. The addition of Rs. 14.50 lakhs for agricultural income was deleted based on past acceptance and lack of contrary evidence.

• Smt. Saroj Rai, Ranchi vs ACIT Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 63/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• Smt. Saroj Rai, Ranchi vs ACIT Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 62/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11Allowed

  The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were not specific and did not clearly indicate the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

• The Indian Educztional Foundation, Ranchi vs Addl Comm.Income Tax, Ranchi
  ITA 69/RAN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• M/S Himachal Construction Co Pvt Lts, Jsr vs ITO WD-1(5), Jsr
  ITA 29/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• Saroj Rai (HUF), Ranchi vs ITO, Ward-3(1), Ranchi
  ITA 120/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• M/S Panchwati Promoters Pvt Ltd, Ranchi vs DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi
  ITA 68/RAN/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2010-11
• Chandravanshi Educational Foundation, Garhwa vs CIT (Exemption), Patna
  ITA 230/RAN/2019[0]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019
• S.R. Logistics, West Singhbhum vs ACIT, Circle-3(1), Jamshedpur
  ITA 77/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• Shyam Lal Mahto, Ranchi vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Ranchi
  ITA 69/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
• M/S Associated Freight Carrier, Jamshedpur vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Jamshedpur
  ITA 226/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• Kumar Constructions and Development Pvt… vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Ranchi
  ITA 114/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
• M/S Value Added Futuristic Management (P)… vs DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 124/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
• Gouri Shankar Jain HUF, Kolkata vs ITO Ward-3(4), Sahebganj
  ITA 67/RAN/2018[1997-98]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 1997-98
• M/S Value Added Futuristic Management (P)… vs DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi
  ITA 125/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
• M/S Sidhi Vinayak Metal and Salt Co. (P)… vs ITO, Ward-3(!), Jamshedpur
  ITA 11/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
• M/S Rampal Agnecies, Koderma vs ITO, Ward-1(5), Koderma
  ITA 211/RAN/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• M/S Sidhi Vinayak Metal and Salt Co. (P)… vs ITO, Ward-3(!), Jamshedpur
  ITA 10/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• Kumar and Roy Construction, Latehar vs DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi
  ITA 239/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
• Shri Harendra Kumar Mishra, Jamshedpur vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Jamshedpur
  ITA 214/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2016-17
• Balmurari Dealer Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ITO, Ward-1(4), Ranchi
  ITA 15/RAN/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2009-10
• Mamta Kumari, Jamshedpur vs DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2, Jamshedpur
  ITA 126/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2016-17
• Krishna Kumar Murarka, Ranchi vs DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi
  ITA 152/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2015-16
• M/S Jai Maa Durga Construction, Palamu vs ITO, Ward-3(5), Daltonganj
  ITA 358/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
• Pansari Ispat Private Ltd., Jamshedpur vs ITO, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur
  ITA 212/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
• M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs DCIT Circle-1, Rnc
  ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2019Dismissed

  The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that receipts from the cinema hall were business income due to the nature of the agreement and provided amenities. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation and common expenses on a pro-rata basis for business assets.

• Jokhiram Chambers Owners Association, Ranchi vs ITO, Ward-1(4), Ranchi
  ITA 349/RAN/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2019AY 2016-17Remanded

  The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the matter should be sent back to the Assessing Officer to verify why the basic exemption limit was not granted. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer for early disposal.

• Sanjeev Sablok, Jamshedpur vs ITO WD-1(4), Jsr
  ITA 147/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2019Partly Allowed

  The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to cash deposits and unsecured loans, finding the assessee failed to discharge their liabilities. However, it allowed the ground regarding interest under sections 234A and 234B, directing it to be charged on returned income.