M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

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

10 vehicles / carriers were collected. He also admitted that this non-deduction of TDS was not reported in Form No. 26Q as statutory required. Subsequently, when these facts were confronted to the petitioner assessee vide shoe-cause dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, no reply was submitted on this point by the assessee. Ld CIT(A) also failed

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

10 vehicles / carriers were collected. He also admitted that this non-deduction of TDS was not reported in Form No. 26Q as statutory required. Subsequently, when these facts were confronted to the petitioner assessee vide shoe-cause dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer, no reply was submitted on this point by the assessee. Ld CIT(A) also failed

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]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

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]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

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]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

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]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties on this issue and material available on record, find that assessee has submitted most of the bills of expenditure before the ld. AO but due to fire in the office of the assessee, balance bills could not be produced at the time of hearing. Besides that the books of accounts

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10. We, after hearing the rival submission of the parties on this issue and material available on record, find that assessee has submitted most of the bills of expenditure before the ld. AO but due to fire in the office of the assessee, balance bills could not be produced at the time of hearing. Besides that the books of accounts

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

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 Tax Act and, therefore, he disallowed both the items. 11. On due consideration of the facts

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

14,00,000/- which was not taken into account while filing the TDS Return by the contractee Government Department (EE, REO, Works Division, Hazaribag) (ii) The appellant has already declared higher turnover as per the audited profit & loss account as compared to the gross receipts as appearing in the Form No. 26AS. (iii) The AO has not established that

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

14,224/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n68,29,96,171/-, K N Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 99,63,117/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n20,06,23,746/- and Bharat Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,51,63,489 and Cash at Bank Rs.\n1,66,47,019/- in their balance sheet

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

14 22.05.2012 9,50,000 15 23.05.2012 7,25,000 16 11.06.2012 9,50,000 17 15.06.2012 9,50,000 18 18.06.2012 9150,000 19 20.06.2012 10,000 20 02.07.2012 10,000 3 Sriram Marketing Services Vs PCIT

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

14,224/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n68,29,96,171/-, K N Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 99,63,117/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n20,06,23,746/- and Bharat Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,51,63,489 and Cash at Bank Rs.\n1,66,47,019/- in their balance sheet

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

14,224/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n68,29,96,171/-, K N Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 99,63,117/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n20,06,23,746/- and Bharat Singh disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,51,63,489 and Cash at Bank Rs.\n1,66,47,019/- in their balance sheet

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

14-16 and M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd (Annexure 12 copy of which is at Page 17-19). c) That with respect to M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd we would like to submit that this is a sister concern company of the assessee and is assessed with the same AO i.e. Central Circle Dhanbad. This can be verified from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI VIJAY PRASAD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Shri Vijay Prasad Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Ran/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 35/Ran/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vijay Prasad Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Patna Dated 09.03.2021 Against Same Impugned Order A Cross-Objection Also Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Ran/2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.09.2012 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 14,32,834/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.03.2014 Determining Total Income Of Rs.

14,32,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2014 determining total income of Rs. 2 ITA No.35/RAN/2021 AND C.O. No. 19/RAN/2021 Shri Vijay Prasad A.Y. 2012-13 15,43,400/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

14,00,000\nLand & Crop Compensation\n24,09,000\n12,00,000\n1,00,000\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\nRehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses\nIICM Charges\n2,37,61,000\n2,40,00,000\n2,40,00,000\n2,51,00,000\n83,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\nMine Closure Expenses\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nDisallowance of Prior