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

2), interest is chargeable from the date immediately following the end of the period mentioned in section 220(1) and ending with the date on which the amount is paid. This shows that the concept of continuing default is in-built in the section. Similarly, in section 221(1) there is in terms a reference to a continuing default

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]

2) to show cause that if TDS was not deducted u/s 194 and for this reason the amount of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- claimed as contractual expenses in respect of assessee should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the appellant has objected to such notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) stating that

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]

2) to show cause that if TDS was not deducted u/s 194 and for this reason the amount of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- claimed as contractual expenses in respect of assessee should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the appellant has objected to such notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) stating that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

14,32,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and 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. 2 ITA No.35/RAN/2021 AND C.O. No. 19/RAN/2021 Shri Vijay Prasad A.Y. 2012-13 15,43,400/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee

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

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-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

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