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

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee company filed appeal before the learned. The CIT(A). vide the impugned order, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by holding that "Admittedly, in this case despite making contrary observation, the ITO/TDS has accepted the transportation payment

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

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

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

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

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that when any payment for contract was made above the prescribed limit then the assessee was required to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Act but since

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 MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

5 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. recipients of the payments had also offered the receipts to tax and the disallowance of the same in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. It was a submission that against the said deletion, also, the revenue is in appeal

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

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 Vs AO 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, who is deriving income from salary. Return

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]

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience

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]

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience

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

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

TDS certificate to the assessee at the time of filing of Income Tax Return for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected all the contentions made by the assessee on single line order that the contention of the assessee was not accepted and the amount is treated as income not disclosed and levied the impugned penalty. I.T.A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

10. Another issue relates to the addition of ₹59,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. During the financial year 2014-15, the assessee had received loan amounts aggregating to ₹59 lakhs from I.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd two entities-M/s Bangabhumi Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Talland Datasoft Pvt. Ltd. The AO alleged that

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

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

5,46,34,242/-\nii) Balance Sheet of L B Singh and K N Singh: Rs. 2,29,65,337/-\nTotal value: Rs. 7,75,99,579/-\nShort fall after reconciliation due to non-availability of records in case of Bharat Singh: - Rs. 15,46,00,421\n(23,22,00,000-7,75,99,579).\nProfit & Loss

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act. This assessment order is based on the best judgment of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee-firm is a joint venture firm involving three contractors, namely Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Shri Arbind Kumar Singh and M/s. Altima Infrastructure (P) Limited. The firm is engaged in the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS Circle, Limited, Vs. Ranchi. Ashok Kunj, Opposite Road No. 3, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AARCS 2555 G Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee represented by Shri B.K. Ishwar, A.R. Department represented by Adjournment Application Filed Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS Circle, Limited, Vs. Ranchi. Ashok Kunj, Opposite Road No. 3, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AARCS 2555 G Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee represented by Shri B.K. Ishwar, A.R. Department represented by Adjournment Application Filed Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed