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]

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. 5. Aggrieved

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]

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018 AY: 2008-09 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. 5. Aggrieved

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

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 and circumstances, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities are not justified in making the above disallowance because on purchase of material

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

13, copy of which is at Page 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

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

8,000 13 19.05.2012 9,50,000 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

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. I.T.A No.299/Ran/2017, I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 & C.O No.08/Ran/2018 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Assessment year

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. I.T.A No.299/Ran/2017, I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 & C.O No.08/Ran/2018 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Assessment year

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

8. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition of ₹3,29,200 on a mere presumption that the assessee must have paid commission at 2% on the trading profit of ₹1,64,60,100. It was argued that the assessee had already paid STT and I.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Benko Traders

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

8,99,40,042/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 17,69,188/-\nand Bharat Singh disclosed Income tax seizure of Rs 1,30,11,471/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 44,55,814/- in\ntheir balance sheet respectively.\nOn analysis of the above-mentioned Cheque in Hand, Cash at Bank and Income tax seizure, it\nclearly shows that

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

8,99,40,042/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 17,69,188/-\nand Bharat Singh disclosed Income tax seizure of Rs 1,30,11,471/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 44,55,814/- in\ntheir balance sheet respectively.\nOn analysis of the above-mentioned Cheque in Hand, Cash at Bank and Income tax seizure, it\nclearly shows that

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

8,99,40,042/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 17,69,188/-\nand Bharat Singh disclosed Income tax seizure of Rs 1,30,11,471/- and Cash at Bank of Rs. 44,55,814/- in\ntheir balance sheet respectively.\nOn analysis of the above-mentioned Cheque in Hand, Cash at Bank and Income tax seizure, it\nclearly shows that

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

13,750/- for the assessment year under consideration. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS on specific reason i.e. "Real Estate business with high closing stocks". Statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time

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

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-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,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

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 the appellant has actually received the said amount

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