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

section 194A for deduction of TDS on interest was not applicable in the facts of the case of the assessee since only a notional/hypothetical entry of aforesaid amount of interest was made. The company was continuously running in loss and was under BIFR for declaration of sick company. M/s OIL, parent company of the appellant, has converted amount due from

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

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

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

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

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]

TDS on such persons were duly deducted at the time of making such payment in the subsequent years and they have filed complete evidence in this regard to prove the fact. The ld. AR, reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Ranchi bench in ITA No. 195/Ran/2016 in the case of Sri Binay Kumar Singh vs ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

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]

TDS on such persons were duly deducted at the time of making such payment in the subsequent years and they have filed complete evidence in this regard to prove the fact. The ld. AR, reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Ranchi bench in ITA No. 195/Ran/2016 in the case of Sri Binay Kumar Singh vs ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

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

TDS, but no such provision is applicable when labours were hired by the assessee directly on the sites. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal and delete the disallowance. 12. Ground No. 5: In this ground of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.8,20,511/-, which

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

14,389.\nA survey under section 133A was conducted on 22.03.2018 at the\nbusiness premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, it was\nnoticed that the registered office of the assessee company was found\nclosed and business activities were being carried on from the premises of\nM/s Prem Steel, proprietary concern of Shri Ramji Lal Agarwal. No\nregular

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

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,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

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

Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of Assessing Officer and directed him to make a fresh assessment considering the findings on the issues discussed on each issue and the conclusions drawn. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, this appeal by the assessee, has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before

INDIAN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,DEOGHAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3,, DEOGHAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 68 of the Act i.e. the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant has submitted paper book wherein it has been submitted as under: "As required information

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

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

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

14,00,000\n1,00,000\n2,37,61,000\n2,40,00,000\n2,40,00,000\n2,51,00,000\n83,40,000\n5,00,000 22,57,00,000\n47,00,000\n4,18,00,000\n33,11,00,000\n14,89,91,861\n23,99,90,931\nDisputed\nTotal

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

Section 263 of the Act dated 26/12/2022, set aside the order of Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2021 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry or investigation to ascertain the nature, source and genuineness of ₹ 2,68,72,976/- and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment on the issues discussed above because