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

2,29,65,337/-\nTotal value: Rs. 7,75,99,579/-\nShort fall after reconciliation due to non-availability of records in case of Bharat Singh: - Rs. 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

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

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 and 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

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rajendra Kumar Samad, I.T.O., Dipasai, Kharswan, Saraikela-833216 Ward 2(4), Vs. (Jharkhand) Jamshedpur. Pan No. Fiops 6380 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

28,456/- even after recognizing that there was no tax liability/demand that arose on returned/assessed income. 2. That the Ld. Lower authorities have erred in levying interest under section 234 A/B/C in direct violation of the provisions of the Act which provides no interest is leviable in case of no tax liability. 3. That the Ld. Lower authorities have erred

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

28 10.10,2012 2,93,000 29 22.11.2012 5,00,000 30 10.12.2012 11,000 31 29.12.2012 2,00,000

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.

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 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

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

28, 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: Both the appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 15.03.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessee in both the appeals has agitated the levy

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

28, 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: Both the appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 15.03.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessee in both the appeals has agitated the levy

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DHANBAD vs. M/S HIMANGSU MAHTO, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

TDS on interest has been made Rs.4123/- there by the ^closing balance of loan of M/S Royal Securities Ltd is Rs.2707784/-. The Learned Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned the details of transactions between the appellant and M/S Royal Securities Ltd. The dealing of landing and borrowing between the assessee and M/S Royal Securities Ltd is not the first time

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

TDS claim and whether the corresponding receipts had been offered to tax. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply with the notices. Consequently, the AO I.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Rajendra Kumar Sahi completed the assessment ex parte and determined the total income

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)

2,17,23,268/-. (17) Submit proof of service tax of Rs. 6,89,59,617/- paid during the year. (18) Submit ledger of “Advertisement” expense along with proof of TDS on the same. (19) Submit ledger of “Other expenses” of Rs. 45,13,68,375/-. (20) On perusal of the P&L account, it is seen that you have

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

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

28, 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.10.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Earlier, the present appeal was disposed of vide order

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years

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

28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years