OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

5 Om Prakash Singh Assessment Year: 2009-10 the section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5: That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and\nin fact by passing order under 144 when notices under 142(1)\nwas complied with and made part of the assessment order as\nwell.\n1.3.1 That it is a matter of fact that the impugned order has been passed\nunder section 144 of the Act under best judgment.\n1.3.2

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

5 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. recipients of the payments had also offered the receipts to tax and the disallowance of the same in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. It was a submission that against the said deletion, also, the revenue is in appeal

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

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

5. For that in any view of the case the appellant was under bonafide belief that no TDS is deductible on such interest and as such there was reasonable cause for the alleged failure to deduct TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend and take

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

5. For that in any view of the case the appellant was under bonafide belief that no TDS is deductible on such interest and as such there was reasonable cause for the alleged failure to deduct TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend and take

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

5. For that in any view of the case the appellant was under bonafide belief that no TDS is deductible on such interest and as such there was reasonable cause for the alleged failure to deduct TDS within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to add, amend and take

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)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

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

5. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also referred to the facts of the case as well as the details filed in the paper book containing 117 pages which mainly includes the financial statements, computation of income, copies of income tax returns and Form 26AS of M/s. Baba Baidyanath

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 COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

section 132(1)\nof the Act was carried out in the case of Sri Lal Babu Singh on November 23,\n2011. In the course of search operations, cash in the form of deposits in the bank\naccounts of Rs. 75.78 crs and Fixed Deposits of Rs. 17.40 crs were found and\nseized.\nCHANDRAHAT\n11/3/15\nertified to be True Bopy Post

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]

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience

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]

5. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 6. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee as well as revenue both have filed their appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal. 7. Now for the sake of convenience

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

TDS) in all a sum of Rs.8,01,634/-, on the ground that the sum in question is not allowable as deduction in view of the provisions of Explanation to Sec.37(1) of the Act. Sec.37(1) of the Act and Explanation thereto reads as follows: “(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections

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

Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and after giving the credit of TDS, raise a fresh demand notice, if any, to the appellant. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 20th May, 2025. (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

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

1. For that the learned officers below have erred in making addition of the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS