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

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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)

25) Please give details of bank accounts maintained by you in following Performa: A/c No. Type of Account Name of the Bank Address of the Branch Padam Kumar Jain Assessment Year: 2012-13 (26) Please also furnish copies of bank statements and a copy of 26AS copies of quarterly 26Q and copies of challans for TDS done. (27) Please furnish

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

25,080/- to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.56,270/-; respectively, after alleging that the same involved some unverified heads and personal usages. We do not find any such element in either of the two these claims in the case file. The fact also remains that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of having incurred the impugned

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

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

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

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

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

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4\nM/s Central Coal Fields Ltd.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4.\nIn reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

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

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4. In reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4.\nIn reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

25% on WDV over the life of assets.\n4.\nIn reply, Ld. CIT DR submitted that the amortisation of the lease\nrental over the lease period would be the appropriate method as land is not\na depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue

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

section 132(1)\nof the Act was carried out in the case of Sri Lal Babu Singh on November 23,\n2011. In the course of search operations, cash in the form of deposits in the bank\naccounts of Rs. 75.78 crs and Fixed Deposits of Rs. 17.40 crs were found and\nseized.\nCHANDRAHAT\n11/3/15\nertified to be True Bopy Post