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

purchased, copies of bills, receipt details, vouchers filed before the lower authorities. Thus taking a consistent view since the facts remain the same, we are inclined to hold that the alleged income is earned from carrying out business activity and is to be assessed as business income and ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in treating the amount of Rs.12

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

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

purchases, the sundry creditors could not be treated as income of the assessee. Copy of relevant order of ITAT is filed herewith. In CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del), the Delhi High Court, referring to its judgment in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 311 ITR 299 (Del) and applying the ratio

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

business transactions. At this instance, we would like to mention that with respect to purchase of power from M/s BT DB Power Limited, the assessee in totality had made a purchase of ₹ 1,94,59,63,834/- whereas the Assessing Officer has disallowed a part payment of the same as bogus. Same is the condition with respect of the other

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

bogus. We also note that the giver of the gift, Shri Dilip Prasad Burnwal died on 22-11-2007, which is much before the date of assessment order. Therefore, it was difficult of the assesse to produce Shri Dilip Prasad Burnwal before the AO. Therefore, the genuineness of the gift is not doubted. Hence, we delete impugned addition of Rs.1

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.

business of real estate and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. ‘Nil’. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly assessment was completed on 30.03.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. However, the case of the assessee was reopened

ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI vs. M/S CHINTPURNI STEEL PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

business and it was only doing sale and purchase of steel scraps. Accordingly the AO came to the conclusion that the money received from Shree Mahalaxmi Steels is bogus and is accommodation entry and accordingly the same was added to the income

DCIT CIR-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S YASH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

income assessed at Rs. 2,82,65,279/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and succeeded in getting relief as ld. CIT(A) held that ld. AO did not Page 3 of 11 I.T.A. No.: 155/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Yash Infratech (P) Ltd. find the transactions bogus and even if it is manipulated affair

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

business or 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

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

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

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

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

bogus. Assessee made payment of commission through account payee cheques for sales canvassed by the party and also in consideration of the collection 5 Shah Brothers Vs ACIT recovered from purchaser. Payments cannot be unreasonable particularly when M/s. Shree Shantinath Silk Industries is not related to the assessee and so even disallowance made by CIT(A) is not proper

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”).

business of land and contract work. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014–15 on 30.11.2014, declaring a total income of ₹40,80,800. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 15.12.2016, accepting the returned income. Subsequently

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Income\nTax in ITA no 485(LKW) 2010 – In the said case since no stock\nregister was being maintained by the assessee, stock was\npresumed to be 11% of the turnover and the difference between\nsuch presumed stock and book value was added in the hands of\nthe assessee. Deleting such addition and upholding the order of\nthe

RANJIT PRASAD SAHU,BOKARO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Ranjit Prasad Sahu, A.C.I.T., Hosir, P.O. Lalpania, Dist.- Hazaribagh. Vs. Bokaro-829149 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Akkpk 9351 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

purchase of goods monthwise and the closing balance of stock monthwise and thus inference can be drawn that unaccounted demonetized currency available with the assessee has been introduced in the books of account in the form of cash receipts from bogus bills. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred by the assessee before