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

42,18,433/-. Moreover Form 26A of M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd was also in on record with the AO as stated above. e) That as such, it is erroneous and incorrect to state that the Ld AO did not conduct any enquiry with respect to non deduction of TDS on hire charges paid to these 2 entities. That merely

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]

42,55,704/-. The assessee did not claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However the AO erroneously noted from the ITR filed by the assessee that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,07,91,119/- u/s 80IA of the Act in column D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA

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]

42,55,704/-. The assessee did not claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However the AO erroneously noted from the ITR filed by the assessee that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,07,91,119/- u/s 80IA of the Act in column D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA

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]

42,55,704/-. The assessee did not claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However the AO erroneously noted from the ITR filed by the assessee that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,07,91,119/- u/s 80IA of the Act in column D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA

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]

42,55,704/-. The assessee did not claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However the AO erroneously noted from the ITR filed by the assessee that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,07,91,119/- u/s 80IA of the Act in column D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA

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

42,79,657/-\nBharat Singh disclosed in Profit & Loss a/c of his proprietorship concerns from BCCL: - Not available\nRs. 5,46,34,242/-\nFurther, L B Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,57,06,353/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n5,36,907/-, K N Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand

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

42,79,657/-\nBharat Singh disclosed in Profit & Loss a/c of his proprietorship concerns from BCCL: - Not available\nRs. 5,46,34,242/-\nFurther, L B Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,57,06,353/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n5,36,907/-, K N Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand

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

42,79,657/-\nBharat Singh disclosed in Profit & Loss a/c of his proprietorship concerns from BCCL: - Not available\nRs. 5,46,34,242/-\nFurther, L B Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand of Rs. 1,57,06,353/- and Cash at Bank of Rs.\n5,36,907/-, K N Singh has disclosed Cheque in Hand

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

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

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

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

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT 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 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

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

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’).

TDS certificate to the assessee at the time of filing of Income Tax Return for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected all the contentions made by the assessee on single line order that the contention of the assessee was not accepted and the amount is treated as income not disclosed and levied the impugned penalty. I.T.A

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