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 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

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

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

14 that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were attracted since the appellant was liable for making deduction u/s.194C which was not done. 2. For that as per the amended provisions of section 194(6) appellant was not liable to make deduction of TDS

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 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

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

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

M/S NEW PUNJAB MOTOR TRANSPORT ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-13

14. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest payment of Rs.4,36,006/- paid to M/s. SREI Equipments Finance Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Tata Capital Ltd., for non-deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

TDS deducted,fixed assets details, short/long term capital gain. (xvii) Balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank statement etc. The assessee submitted the documents and details, as mentioned above, during the original assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. During the original assessment proceedings(before first 263 order

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

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

TDS was deducted over it. No reply for the above was furnished by the assessee. Hence, the same is disallowed because as the provisions of section 40(a)(ai) of the I.T.Act,1961 same is disallowable expenditure. Further as the details & ledger furnished by the assessee under the head Architect Drawing & MAP Approval are contradictory to each other

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

SMT. WARSHA BAGARIA,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

TDS was deducted only on Rs. 4,08,205/- being the interest amount. Balance was the principal amount and some bonus that the assessee was entitled for. Ld. AO was not justified in making the addition of the principal amount as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Investment made in past has been accepted in the respective

M/S STROKES ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT,C-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Strokes Advertising Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aancs 6471 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Jharkhand, Dated 31.10.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10077/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The 50% Of Total Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.2,53,884/- With Respect To The Amounts Debited In The P&L Account Relating To Fuel Expenses, Fabrications Works, Mounting Of Flex & Site Expenses 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,47,400/ Considering It To Be Commission Paid Without Deduction Of Tds.”

TDS which has been accepted by the AO. Undisputedly, the assessee is in the advertising business for which the assessee requires support of various persons in the form of procuring business and doing filed work for fixing posters and taking security of other advertising material lying in the open field and on the roads. Certainly, the daily-wage labourer, which