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)

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 and state government wherein the final job is subject to strict scrutiny by officials and government inspectors and filed return of income declaring an income

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”).

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the 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

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

250/- making an addition of Rs.94,62,598/- and for the assessment year 2012-2013 the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income of Rs.1,47,26,890/- making addition of Rs.93,75,381/- on account of clinker rake handling charges. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before

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

250/- making an addition of Rs.94,62,598/- and for the assessment year 2012-2013 the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining total income of Rs.1,47,26,890/- making addition of Rs.93,75,381/- on account of clinker rake handling charges. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before

KAVITA CHAURASIA,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,95,000/- made by the Ld Assessing Officer taking the Stamp Duty Value when

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–12 declaring a total income of ₹5,56,050, showing income from salary and house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 27.04.2017 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Under