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

bogus purchases of ₹ 35,77,52,226/- but had held that the same was liable to be considered as disallowable under Section 37(1) of the Act, the assessee is in appeal. It was a submission that as is evident in the assessee's appeal, the assessee has purchased the 82,81,832.84 mega watts of energy and the same

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

bogus sundry creditors and should not be added to the income of the appellant. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned addition made by Ld. assessing officer u/s 41(1) of the Act is required to be deleted. [7.1] The findings of the Assessment order, the written & oral submissions and documentary evidence furnished by the AR during the appellate proceedings

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

purchase was duly disclosed in the Balance Sheet filed of the HUF. The addition made on substantive basis, therefore, is unjustified and illegal. (6) For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming an addition of Rs.46,35,845/- treating the capital gain as bogus and sale consideration of the shares was considered as income

RAJENDER SHANGARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.266/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajendra Shangari, Jamshedpur.................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot 9, Bhuiyadih, Agrico, Jamshedpur – 831009. [Pan: Alcps6310F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vinod Agarwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 16.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In Contractual Jobs To Tata Steel & State Government Wherein The Final Job Is Subject To Strict Scrutiny By Officials & Government Inspectors & Filed Return Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,58,20,920/- For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Subsequently, In The Case Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 148 Proceedings & Completed The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Adding An Amount Of Rs.38,46,188/- To The Income Of The Assessee Stating That The Alleged Sum Was Bogus Purchase. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Reassessment Order, Where The Ld. Cit(A)

income declared and sales figures reported by the assessee but solely disputed purchase figures to make the addition, which is not correct. He further argued that when the books of account are not rejected and revenue declared by the assessee is accepted, it is not permissible to treat the purchase as bogus

SRI MULCHAND JAIN,PALAMU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.54/Ran/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The sole substantive issue that arises for our apt adjudication in the instant case is that of correctness of bogus purchases disallowance / addition

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)

bogus expenses in form of incentive of sales given to aforesaid buyers in order to evade taxes. You are requested to show cause as to why expenses claimed under the head incentive on sales totaling amounting to Rs. 9,45,96,300/- should not be disallowed and added to the total income for the year under consideration. 2. On examination

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

bogus expenses and disallowance made on adhoc basis by the AO is not proper. (6) Any other ground that may arise at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a builder/developer and filed return of income on 29.11.2014 for the A.Y. 2014-2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,54,980/-. Subsequently

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , JAMSHDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

income of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, the AO has referred to the search operation in the case of one Sri Praveen Aggrawal who had admitted in his sworn statement that he was control of around 200 companies (the recipient of the expenses being one of the company) engaged in providing accommodation entry only related subcontract, bogus commission

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTION PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

income of the appellant. In coming to this conclusion, the AO has referred to the search operation in the case of one Sri Praveen Aggrawal who had admitted in his sworn statement that he was control of around 200 companies (the recipient of the expenses being one of the company) engaged in providing accommodation entry only related subcontract, bogus commission

MOTOREX FINANCE PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymotorex Finance Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (West Ward 4(1), Vs. Bengal). Kolkata. Pan No. Aaccm 1042 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

purchased the shares that formed the addition of Rs. 9,35,75,560/- and on account of an allegation that the assessee was unable to prove that the said amount of Rs. 4,46,49,856/- was the interest income, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition. It was a prayer that the addition as made by the Assessing

RASHMI SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.208/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rashmi Singhania.…....……………… … ...........…………………………Appellant C/O. S. Singhania & Co. 7Th Floor, Room No.3, 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aswps1056N] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Jamshedpur...........……………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. K. Singhania, Advocate,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Chinmaya Aurangabadkar, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :March 24, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

addition is that the assessee has shown the aforesaid long-term capital gains from the share transactions made in respect of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. As per the information available with the Assessing Officer, the said Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. was involved in bogus entries and thereby providing bogus long-term capital gains/losses to the investors. On being

KARNI MANSION PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution by upholding the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be quashed.

income at Rs. 2 Karmi Mansion Pvt. Ltd. 1,67,15,140/- by made an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 12,15,139/- on account of bogus share capital, unexplained investment in purchase

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated as income. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised specific legal grounds, challenging the validity of reopening under section 147, as well as grounds on merits. However

AKHIKLESH PANDEY,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

addition of Rs. 5,20,82,628/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') on account of bogus long term capital gain by denying the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee filed return of income

SMT PRITI PALRIWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

addition made U/s 68 by disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains claimed as exempt income U/s 10(38). It is not in dispute that all the assessee has disclosed exempt income U/s 10(38) from sale of shares in name of M/s Global Capital Market Ltd. 5. That it is not in dispute that during the assessment proceedings

SMT RENU PALRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

addition made U/s 68 by disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains claimed as exempt income U/s 10(38). It is not in dispute that all the assessee has disclosed exempt income U/s 10(38) from sale of shares in name of M/s Global Capital Market Ltd. 5. That it is not in dispute that during the assessment proceedings

M/S. GAURAV PALRIWAL (HUF),RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(3), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

addition made U/s 68 by disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains claimed as exempt income U/s 10(38). It is not in dispute that all the assessee has disclosed exempt income U/s 10(38) from sale of shares in name of M/s Global Capital Market Ltd. 5. That it is not in dispute that during the assessment proceedings

SRI KAMAL KUMAR PALRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

addition made U/s 68 by disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains claimed as exempt income U/s 10(38). It is not in dispute that all the assessee has disclosed exempt income U/s 10(38) from sale of shares in name of M/s Global Capital Market Ltd. 5. That it is not in dispute that during the assessment proceedings