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

TDS Circle, Dhanbad, therefore, submitted a proposal for initiation of penalty under the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, a penalty notice under Section 271C of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 28/02/2018 asking the assessee to furnish written submission within seven days of the receipt of the show cause notice as to why the penalty under Section

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

TDS Circle, Dhanbad, therefore, submitted a proposal for initiation of penalty under the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, a penalty notice under Section 271C of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 28/02/2018 asking the assessee to furnish written submission within seven days of the receipt of the show cause notice as to why the penalty under Section

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

TDS Circle, Dhanbad, therefore, submitted a proposal for initiation of penalty under the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, a penalty notice under Section 271C of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 28/02/2018 asking the assessee to furnish written submission within seven days of the receipt of the show cause notice as to why the penalty under Section

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

B&J), Patna dated 26/09/2025, I have been directed to perform duty as CIT(DR) P a g e 1 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. from 06.10.2025 to 10.10,2025 on rotational basis. In the following cases appeal orders have been passed by this office. In some cases, appeals of the same assessee

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’).

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed certain expenditure on ad hoc basis out of the total expenses on account of transport and freight. The Assessing Officer further made ad hoc disallowances out of certain expenditure on diesel and petrol, fuel and gas etc. totalling to Rs.1,36,234/- and assessed the total income by the assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

TDS is liable to be\ndeducted on the said payment. Thus, this issue is in held in favour of the\nassessee.\n20. Next issue is in regard to provisions towards NCWA VIII. It was the\nsubmission that this is an interim relief on account of the pay revision.\nIt was the submission that in April 2008 the holding company being

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

TDS is liable to be\ndeducted on the said payment. Thus, this issue is in held in favour of the\nassessee.\n20. Next issue is in regard to provisions towards NCWA VIII. It was the\nsubmission that this is an interim relief on account of the pay revision.\nIt was the submission that in April 2008 the holding company being

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

B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri P. Anand, A.R. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/04/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribag [in short

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

3%\n3,658\n125,576\n-T.D.S.\n315,944\nRefundable\n190,368\nAs per our attached Report of even date\nFor D.N. SINHA & CO.\nChartered Accountants\nDIN. SINHA\nPropristor\n178\n12 دار\n26\nM/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.\nPoonam Entp., Prabha Entp., Priye Ento.\nProp:- Sri. Kumbh Nath Singh\nJharla, Dhanbad.\nBalance Sheet as on 31 st. March

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

b) That in response to the 142(1) notice dated 09/12/2020, the reply of the assessee was filed online on 03/01/2021, acknowledgment copy of which is attached herewith at Page - 11-12 wherein annexure 9 i.e. note for non deduction of TDS is at Page 13 and that apart from our submissions we have also attached Form 26A in case

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

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

3 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 94/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay. Executive Engineer, REO Works Division, Hazaribag is Rs. 2,12,79,417/- which is higher. It also submitted that ld. AO seems to have made the mistake inadvertently by taking the figure of the payment received from Executive Engineer, REO Works Division, Hazaribag during the year

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]

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head contractual expenses. Ld. AO had made disallowance of Rs. 7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS

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]

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head contractual expenses. Ld. AO had made disallowance of Rs. 7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS

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

3)\n1 Contractual Expenses related to Kustore area (LB\nSingh)\n23,22,00,000\n1,33,93,00,000\n36,44,00,000\n3\nContractual Expenses (details not furnished)\n34,76,18,000\n4\nContractual Exp. Barora - Block II liab. disallowed\nu/s 40(a)(ia) - Settled in VsV Dt. 23.02.2021 &\n24.02.2021 - Not pressed\n35,88,38,000\n6\nGrant

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

1 & 2. Hence, these grounds are rejected. 2 A.Y. 2010-2011 M/s. P.K. Upadhyay 5. Ground No. 3: In this ground, the assessee has pleaded that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,55,280/-. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 06.12.2010 declaring total

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

TDS is liable to be\ndeducted on the said payment. Thus, this issue is in held in favour of the\nassessee.\n20. Next issue is in regard to provisions towards NCWA VIII. It was the\nsubmission that this is an interim relief on account of the pay revision.\nIt was the submission that in April 2008 the holding company being