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 Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

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 Dhanbad, vide order dated 01/05/2018 (parallel orders for each year) and same being confirmed by CIT(A) NFAC vide order dated 30/01/2024 (parallel orders for each year). 2. That at the very outset we challenge the very initiation of the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 28/02/2018 (parallel notice for each year) to the extent that the same has been

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

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

TDS under Section 194C of the Act but since it 2 K.M. Memorial Hospital Vs ACIT has failed to deduct the same. The expenditure claimed at ₹ 3,00,000/- has to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before us. During the course

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]

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section

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]

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of section

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS & TCS provisions. 7. That as stated above, it is not a case where no enquiry or no application of mind has been done by the Ld AO. Apparently what can be opined is only that the Ld PCTT was not fully convinced with the enquiry and verification done by the Ld AO and as such, the powers vested

ITO, TDS WARD, RANCHI vs. M/S AWADHESH SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm

section 194C TDS deduction. He also took us to the assessee’s survey statement making it clear in the penultimate paragraph that he had never made the payments to labour contractors and sub-contractors; as the case may be. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. There is hardly any dispute between the parties

ITO, TDS WARD, RANCHI vs. M/S AWADHESH SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm

section 194C TDS deduction. He also took us to the assessee’s survey statement making it clear in the penultimate paragraph that he had never made the payments to labour contractors and sub-contractors; as the case may be. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings. There is hardly any dispute between the parties

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

section 143(3) on 31.12.2012. The ld. Assessing Officer has determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,52,780/-. In the reopened assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer perused the record and recorded a finding that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.5,11,164/- in the assets side of the balance-sheet on account of time extension

RAM KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 189/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ram Kumar,…………………………………………..Appellant C/O. Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta, Gayatri Niwas, Ekta Colony, Majhi Tola, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013, Jharkhand [Pan:Anspk0996Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle, Office Road, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

section 194J was Rs.4,68,868/- and professional receipts were Rs.46,88,681/- for FY 2017-18. During the course of survey operation, the assessee received Rs.14,72,295/- as per receipts of his professional fees from his clinic upto 28.02.2018, which is different from the above amount on which TDS was deducted. Professional receipts were Rs.62

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI VIJAY PRASAD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Shri Vijay Prasad Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Ran/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 35/Ran/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vijay Prasad Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi Flat No. 202, Madhusudan Sir Vs Krishanapuri, Dimna Road Mango, Jamshedpur-831012. Pan: Ailpp 0228 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: Jm This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Patna Dated 09.03.2021 Against Same Impugned Order A Cross-Objection Also Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Ran/2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 11.09.2012 Showing Total Income Of Rs. 14,32,834/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Assessment In The Case Of Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.03.2014 Determining Total Income Of Rs.

section 194(7) of the Act. Assessee has failed to deduct tax at source when such payment was made exceeded the limit as prescribed under the law. Therefore, the impugned finding 3 ITA No.35/RAN/2021 AND C.O. No. 19/RAN/2021 Shri Vijay Prasad A.Y. 2012-13 given by ld. CIT(A) needs to be quashed by sustaining the order

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

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

Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is prospective in nature, therefore, no computation of late fee or demand or intimation u/s.234E of the Act could be made for TDS deducted in respective statements prior to 01.06.2015 and processed u/s.200A of the Act. Further, the ld. AR relied on the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal

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

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

Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is prospective in nature, therefore, no computation of late fee or demand or intimation u/s.234E of the Act could be made for TDS deducted in respective statements prior to 01.06.2015 and processed u/s.200A of the Act. Further, the ld. AR relied on the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

7. The next issue relates to the addition of 3,29,200 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged commission paid at 2% over the impugned addition of ₹1,64,60,100. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. According to the Revenue, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in doing so, and therefore the deletion made

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. 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 : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein