SHRI KIRTIMAN SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

addition made, therefore, is unjustified, arbitrary and uncalled for. 5. For that without prejudice to our contention mentioned above, the estimate of profit as made by ld. AO in the case of the appellant is illegal. No document was found to suggest that appellant executed any work of contract which was not disclosed. 6. For that ld. Assessing Officer

MOTOREX FINANCE PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymotorex Finance Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (West Ward 4(1), Vs. Bengal). Kolkata. Pan No. Aaccm 1042 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

income has also been subjected to TDS and the Assessing Officer has not disturbed the TDS either in fact the Assessing Officer has accepted the TDS and has issued appropriate refunds to the assessee. This being so, we are of the view that the addition

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

additions was erroneously computed of a total of Rs.5,97,716/- instead of a total of Rs.11,42,917/-, indicating that there was undercharge of income to the tune of Rs. 5,45,201/- during the year. As per the submission, the assessee has only contended that of the expenses were genuine and backed with proper bills/vouchers

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

TDS, has deleted the addition and observed as under :- And CO No.02/Ran/2018 5. Ground no. 2 relates to addition of Rs. 2,15,01,768/-. 5.1 I have gone through the order of the learned AO, remand report as well as the written submission and counter comments on the remand report made by the appellant. The AO in his order

SHRIRAM MARKETING SERVICES,GIRIDIH vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS was made u/s 1941. Since the assessee did not file the return for the A.Y. 2013-14, the entire amount of payment received by it during such F.Y., which was Rs.2,68,72,976/-, may be treated as income escaped assessment." From the perusal of Para 2 of the Assessment order, it can be seen based on the information

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

income in order to reduce taxable profits. It was also observed that the assessee had claimed significantly higher TDS in the revised ITR. Therefore, the AO intended to verify the genuineness of the additional

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 28/02/2022 and for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16 and 2016-17 respectively. These appeals of the revenue are having common facts and grounds except variation in the amounts of addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, Patna [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 28/02/2022 and for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16 and 2016-17 respectively. These appeals of the revenue are having common facts and grounds except variation in the amounts of addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals

SMT. WARSHA BAGARIA,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

TDS was deducted only on Rs. 4,08,205/- being the interest amount. Balance was the principal amount and some bonus that the assessee was entitled for. Ld. AO was not justified in making the addition of the principal amount as income

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S VKS AKS AIPL, KHUNTI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

income with minor addition which works out to only 0.37% of the net profit. It is the contention of the AR that there is no justification for the AO to estimate the net profit anything higher than 0.37%, which is as per the scrutiny Assessment Order u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2014-15, I find that lot of force

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

addition of Rs.34,13,698/-. 10. Brief facts of the case are that there are two components:- Labour Charges Rs.17,65,010 Material Charges Rs.16,48,688/- Total Rs.34,13,698/- According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Income

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS & TCS provisions. 7. That as stated above, it is not a case where no enquiry or no application of mind has been done by the Ld AO. Apparently what can be opined is only that the Ld PCTT was not fully convinced with the enquiry and verification done by the Ld AO and as such, the powers vested

M/S STROKES ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT,C-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Strokes Advertising Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aancs 6471 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Jharkhand, Dated 31.10.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10077/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The 50% Of Total Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.2,53,884/- With Respect To The Amounts Debited In The P&L Account Relating To Fuel Expenses, Fabrications Works, Mounting Of Flex & Site Expenses 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,47,400/ Considering It To Be Commission Paid Without Deduction Of Tds.”

addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.6,47,400/ considering it to be commission paid without deduction of TDS.” 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of advertising and filed its return of income

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

addition as partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly our decision in ground no. 3 in ITA NO. 11/Ran/2018 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this ground as well. Consequently ground no. 2 is allowed. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) not granting TDS credit

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

addition as partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly our decision in ground no. 3 in ITA NO. 11/Ran/2018 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this ground as well. Consequently ground no. 2 is allowed. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) not granting TDS credit

JUSCO LTD ,JSR vs. DCIT CIR-2 , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

addition as partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly our decision in ground no. 3 in ITA NO. 11/Ran/2018 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this ground as well. Consequently ground no. 2 is allowed. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) not granting TDS credit

JAMSHEDPUR UTILITIES AND SERVICES COMPANY LTD,JSR vs. ACIT CIR-2, JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

addition as partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly our decision in ground no. 3 in ITA NO. 11/Ran/2018 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this ground as well. Consequently ground no. 2 is allowed. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) not granting TDS credit

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ACIT, TDS Circle, Dhanbad, therefore, submitted a proposal for initiation of penalty under the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, a penalty notice under Section 271C of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 28/02/2018 asking the assessee to furnish written submission within seven days of the receipt