BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 142(1) by the assessing\nofficer which is not in accordance with the accepted and well\nestablished norms of assessment and therefore, the order under\nsection 144 passed by the assessing officer is bad in law and\ndeserves to be cancelled.\nWrongful Addition of Stocks\n1.4 For ground 1: That the Ld. AO has grossly erred

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

1) of the Act. Thus, it cannot be considered as time barred. The ld. CIT(A) also held or imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the order of Assessing Officer who imposed penalty under Section 271C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee company

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

1) of the Act. Thus, it cannot be considered as time barred. The ld. CIT(A) also held or imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the order of Assessing Officer who imposed penalty under Section 271C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee company

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

1) of the Act. Thus, it cannot be considered as time barred. The ld. CIT(A) also held or imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, confirmed the order of Assessing Officer who imposed penalty under Section 271C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee company

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

4 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. 35,77,52,226/- as bogus purchases. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had also made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) wherein it was stated that these were the payments made

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’).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has not offered to tax certain interest income received by him as was deciphered from Form 26AS. He, therefore, made the addition of Rs.77,420/- and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further the Assessing

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

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

TDS Return by the contractee Government Department (EE, REO, Works Division, Hazaribag) (ii) The appellant has already declared higher turnover as per the audited profit & loss account as compared to the gross receipts as appearing in the Form No. 26AS. (iii) The AO has not established that the appellant has actually received the said amount

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

1) of the Act were issued from time to time and duly served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his submission online with copy of acknowledgement of the ITR, bank statements, computation of income, audit report, Form 26AS, audited books of account, ledger accounts, Challans regarding PMGKY Scheme alongwith other details and documents

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]

4. The ld. AO further disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

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]

4. The ld. AO further disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

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’).

section 201. 4. That in view of the aforesaid circular of the CBDT, the consequential relief of aforesaid addition of Rs.132,20,00,000/- be given. 3. A perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) in this case reveals that the assessee had not pressed the above issue relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect

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

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

4,435,814.00\nCash In Hand\n51,890.00\n23,482,211.00\n23,482,211.00\nAs par our attached Report of even date\nFor D.N. SINHA & CO.\nChartered Accountaris\n..NHA! 0019112\nPropristor\nBHARA\n23\nM/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.\nREVIOUS Y\nAMOUNT\nPREVIOLIS Y۳.\nAMOUN?\nPARTICULARS\nCURRENT YE.\nAMOUNT\nAlt Sezpec India Electricals.Hi-Tech Engineers L.G.Ele.Mech. Ent.\nMamta Ent., Singh

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