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

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to enquire into the expenses claimed by the assessee regarding major expenses claimed in the books to arrive at the correct assessment of the income of the assessee with 3 Ashok Kr. Pandey Vs PCIT regard to (i) real estate business with high closing stock, (ii) enquiries

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

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

263 of the Act vide its order dated 23/03/2018. During the consequential assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 3.00 lacs to one Sri Sudhanshu Ojha but no TDS under Section 194C of the Act was deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the entire amount under Section

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

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 wherein the Assessing Officer took the stand that Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was not existent at the given address and Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. did not have the machinery/excavation machinery to carryout the development of mining area. It was a submission that consequently the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure

INDIAN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,DEOGHAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3,, DEOGHAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

263 of the Act on 28/12/2017 and made additions of ₹ 45.00 lacs on account of unsecured loan on the ground that the genuineness of the same was not established during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 09/12/2021 for the assessment year under consideration, confirmed the order

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)

263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the cash purchases amounting to Rs.26,25,455/-. Thereafter Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the Act reads as follows: “1. The assessee is a contractor owns M/s Prakash Construction Company. The assessment

M/S. HIMANGSHU MAHATO VANIJAYA PVT. LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS return, acknowledgement and bank account of the lenders during the course of 263 proceeding before the PCIT but without considering all those document set aside for fresh adjudication and cancelled the order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27/03/2023. 2.7 For that in any view of the matter, the learned