K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then only 30% of the amount can be disallowed. 1.1 For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 26

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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

26, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 20, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.09.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

26,89,300. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the additions observing as under: “Appellate findings: I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the Ld.AO and the material available on record. In his written submission the Ld. AR stated that the Ld. AO has grossly erred in adding

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

ACIT CIRCLE-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.\nertified to be True Bopy Post-search investigations

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

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS was also deducted. It was a submission that Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was assessed in Kolkata. The Assessing Officer of Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. treated the activities of Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. as bogus Shah Brothers Vs ACIT transaction and as a paper company and consequently he had intimated the Assessing Officer of the assessee. It was a submission

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

26,000\nPA\nAY 2007-08\n165/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n17,33,32,000\n74,48,000\n23,16,60,000\nPA\nAY 2008-09\n166/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n2,80,62,000\n25,20,60,000\nAY 2009-10\n167/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n26,65,86,000\n26,19,00,000\nAY 2010-11\n168/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee

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

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\n1,21,53,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\nPrior period exp. not exceeding

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

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses

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

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses

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

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\nPA\nAY 2007-08\n165/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n17,33,32,000\n74,48,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nPA\nAY 2008-09\n166/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior

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

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n2,35,40,000\n1,21,53,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n1 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n12 Prior period

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\n2,20,00,000\n2,35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

26,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\nPrior period exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\nTotal Rs.\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\nPA\nAY 2007-08\n165/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee