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

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RANCHI vs. M/S. R.V.S. EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.24/Ran/2020 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ A.Y. :2016-2017) Acit, Exemption Circle, Ranchi Vs. M/S Rvs Educational Trust, C/O Binda Apartments (India) Private Limited, Siroman Nagar, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012 ̾Ĉĭēıĕĸù Ĭĝń/Pan No. : Aaatr4456M (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×""ȸ/ Respondent) ..

section 2(15) of the LT. Act. Assesse Trust has been granted registered u/s 12AA of the income tax Act as per order of CIT (Jamshedpur) by verifying its objects and activities of educational institutions. The trust runs school and college purely on educational purpose. The Ld. A.O. was not justified in holding that the assesse trust is a business

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

section 263 has been invoked for the following reasons:- "Perusal of records reveals that no analysis of quantitative details has been done by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Sanjay Chawla Vs PCIT Even no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer as to why there was a loss at the Gross Profit Level.” 3. 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

15% as the same were self used. 3. That with respect to the issue that is Hire Charges was paid to 7 persons on whom TDS was not deducted, PCIT observed that the Ld AO has conducted enquiry in case of 5 entities and overlooked to conduct any enquiry in case of Ws Dev Multicom Pvt. Ltd and Smt. Jaya

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

15, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : October 29, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 07.08.2024 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for the assessment year 2022–23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI VIJAY PRASAD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Shri Vijay Prasad Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Ran/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 35/Ran/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vijay Prasad Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Patna Dated 09.03.2021 Against Same Impugned Order A Cross-Objection Also Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Ran/2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.09.2012 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 14,32,834/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.03.2014 Determining Total Income Of Rs.

15,43,400/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee by virtue of the order from Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna has set aside the assessment order with the direction to pass fresh assessment order. In consequent to that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee and during the assessment proceeding, the assessee had made

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees)\nAssessee-company was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

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

15,46,00,421\n(23,22,00,000-7,75,99,579).\nProfit & Loss a/c and Balance Sheet of L B Singh, K N Singh and Bharat Singh for the FY 2010-11,\n2011-12 and 2008-09 relevant to AY 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2009-10 are attached/enclosed in support of the\naforesaid data except

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee