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

9 years from the end of relevant Financial year is barred by limitation. ii. That no demand of TDS u/s 201(1) was raised for the year under consideration, because the proceedings were barred by limitation. As such since the proceedings for demanding Tax / TDS in itself are barred by limitation, any action for imposition of penalty is ab-initio

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

Section 133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the factory-cum- office premises at Hehal, Barkakana, Ramgarh on 29/01/2019. During the course of survey, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary, Accountant and authorised signatory of assessee was present and was asked to produce the books of account and other relevant documents regarding the payments

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

Section 133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was conducted in the factory-cum- office premises at Hehal, Barkakana, Ramgarh on 29/01/2019. During the course of survey, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary, Accountant and authorised signatory of assessee was present and was asked to produce the books of account and other relevant documents regarding the payments

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

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

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]

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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]

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever.” 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material available on record. We notice that while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹3,29,202 by estimating commission @2% on the trading receipts of ₹1,64,60,100, alleging that such commission was paid for obtaining accommodation entries. However, during the course of assessment

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

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

9 i.e. note for non deduction of TDS is at Page 13 and that apart from our submissions we have also attached Form 26A in case of Smt Jaya Devi (Annexure 13, copy of which is at Page 14-16 and M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd (Annexure 12 copy of which is at Page 17-19). c) That with respect

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

Section 37(1) of the Act is unsustainable and consequently we delete the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 471/Ran/2024 stands allowed. 9. Coming to the revenue's appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that in respect of amount of ₹ 57.00 lacs, the recipients have

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

TDS deducted as given in Form 26AS amounting to 119350/-. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, any ground of appeal either at the time of hearing or before the date of hearing." Anwesh Kr Chakraborty Vs AO 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, who is deriving income from salary. Return

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

section 263 has been invoked for the following reasons:- "Perusal of records reveals that no analysis of quantitative details has been done by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Sanjay Chawla Vs PCIT Even no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer as to why there was a loss at the Gross Profit Level.” 3. That

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

9,13,750/- for the assessment year under consideration. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS on specific reason i.e. "Real Estate business with high closing stocks". Statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time

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

9,200,703.00\nB.O.I.,C/A A/c 05\n10,150.00\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20190\n12,695.00\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20189\n35,889.00\nSundry Cr. ditor\nU.C.C. Bank A/c 20188\n3,149,118.00\nAs per Lis Attached\n14,220,508.00\nB.O.I. A/c 00001\n6,702.00\nB.O.I. A/c 204\n10,150.00\nB.C.I. A/c 209\n10,150.00\nB.O.I. A/c 207\n10,150.00\nB.O.I

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

9,200,703.00\nCash at Bank\nB.O.J., SB A/c 9189\n2,652.00\nB.O.I.,C/A A/c 05\n10,150.00\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20190\n12,695.00\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20189\n35,889.00\nSundry Cr. ditor\nU.C.C. Bank A/c 20188\n3,149,118.00\nAs per Lis Attached\n14,220,508.00\nB.O.I. A/c 00001\n6,702.00\nB.O.I. A/c 204\n10,150.00\nB.C.I

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

9,200,703.00 B.O.I.,C/A A/c 05\n10,150.00\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20190\n12,695.00\nSundry Cr. ditor\nU.C.O. Bank A/c 20189\n35,889.00\nAs per Lis Attached\n14,220,508.00\nU.C.C. Bank A/c 20188\n3,149,118.00\nB.O.I. A/c 00001\n6,702.00\nOutstandi: Liabilities\nB.O.I. A/c 204\n10,150.00\nB.C.I. A/c 209\n10,150.00\nLiabilities