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

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

36,071/- for the assessment year under consideration. 2 ITA 27/Ran/2024 Devprabha Construction P Ltd. Vs PCIT 3. However, the ld. PCIT, Dhanbad while examining the assessment record of the assessee, found that the Assessing Officer has completed assessment order without making necessary enquiries or verification in apropos of the issue for which the case was selected for complete scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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’).

36,234/- and assessed the total income by the assessee at Rs.31,65,966/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the ld counsel for the assessee has submitted that certain disallowances were made on ad hoc basis and in that case, there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing

ANWESH KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income. But in this case, there has been no income which has escaped assessment, the assessing officer in regard to deductions claimed by assessee wanted documentary evidences for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified by upholding the AO's order of addition

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

2 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

36,000\n2,35,40,000\n2,20,00,000\n2,13,49,00,000\n19,85,73,000\n2,16,22,000\n1,21,53,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n1 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n12 Prior period exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

36,000\n40,87,00,000\n23,17,26,000\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

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

36,000\nLand & Crop Compensation\n89,82,07,000\n74,48,000\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\n40,87,00,000\nRehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses\n23,17,26,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\nIICM Charges\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII

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

36,000\n23,16,60,000\n25,20,60,000\n26,19,00,000\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 exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses\n14 Stripping

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

36,000\nLand & Crop Compensation\n89,82,07,000\n74,48,000\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\n40,87,00,000\nRehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses\n23,17,26,000\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

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

36,000\nLand & Crop Compensation\n89,82,07,000\n74,48,000\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\n40,87,00,000\nRehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses\n23,17,26,000\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

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

36,000\n40,87,00,000\n23,17,26,000\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

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

36,000\n2,35,40,000\n91,73,000\nDisputed\n57,14,34,000\nDisputed\n5,95,76,000\nM/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS Ltd.\nAssessee's Appeals-disputed Additions\nSI.\nHead\nΙ.Τ.Α. No.\nAY 2011-12\n169/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n39,98,32,440\n24,09,000\nAY 2012-13\n170/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee