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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. I.T.A No.299/Ran/2017, I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for preceding 8 years only by relying on the amendment made in this regard by Finance (No. 2), Bill 1996. I.T.A No.299/Ran/2017, I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018

JHARKHAND STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.1, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjharkhand State Beverages A.C.I.T., Corporation Limited, Central Circle-1, Vs. Utpad Bhawan, Kanke Road, Ranchi. Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aaccj 5622 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Loss account. It was a submission that on account of non-deduction of TDS, the Assessing Officer had disallowed 30% of the said expenses on which the TDS had not been deducted. It was a submission that the amounts had been crystallized during the subsequent years and the amounts paid and the TDS deducted and paid to the account

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

set aside the original assessment order:- a) Business Expenses - Hire Charges paid to 7 persons on which TDS not deducted, out of which AO has conducted enquiry and verified only 5 persons. b) Hire Charges have been made to related persons U/s 40(A)(2b) without deduction of TDS and verifying the ownership and other details. c) Depreciation on Plant

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

set aside. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C

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

set aside. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C

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

set aside. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that since disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

setting up and maintaining an institute where the staffs of the\nassessee can be sent for training in regard to best practices and other\nsafety precautions etc. Similar is also in regard to the administration. There\nhas no technical assistance given by the said institute to the assessee. The\nassessee has also admittedly the not paid any amount to IICM