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)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT.,LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ए. सी. आई. टी. सेंट्रलाइज्ड प्रोसेसिंग सेल-टी. डी. एस. , गाजिआबाद

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E of the Act, 1961. He further submitted that prior 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in the Act u/s 200A for raising demand in respect of levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act. The provision of Section 234E of the Act is charging provision i.e. substantive provision which could