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

ANWESH KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

20,879/- on account of HRA and addition of Rs. 35,000/-. 3. The AO has not considered the amount of TDS deducted as given in Form 26AS amounting to 119350/-. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, any ground of appeal either at the time of hearing or before the date of hearing." Anwesh Kr Chakraborty

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]

20(1) of the Constitution of India. Notes on clauses on the amendment specifically mentioned that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2013. In view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court view. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation, which was rightly disallowed by then Assessing Officer

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]

20(1) of the Constitution of India. Notes on clauses on the amendment specifically mentioned that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2013. In view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court view. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A), Dhanbad erred in allowing the prior period depreciation, which was rightly disallowed by then Assessing Officer

SHRI KIRTIMAN SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kirtiman Singh, D.C.I.T., 357/A, Professor Colony, Karam Toli, Circle-2, Vs. Behind Abhilasha Building, Morabadi, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001. Pan No. Awmps 5592 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS was deducted on the deposits made in the bank account. The estimate of profit as belonging to the appellant is, therefore, unjustified, arbitrary and illegal. 7. For that in any view of the case, without prejudice to our contention mentioned above, the estimate of profit at 10% is unjustified, excessive, arbitrary and uncalled for. 8. For that ld. Assessing

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

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

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

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

TDS is factually incorrect. 4. That with respect to the 2nd issue i.e. hire charges paid to related persons U/s 40(A)(2b) and the vehicles/ machinery ownership details, we would like to submit as under:- a) That this issue was duly enquired and looked into at the time of original assessment which can be verified from

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease