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

purchase and sale of unquoted shares through group concerns. It was also accepted on oath by Sri Aggrawal that for such accommodation entries, only commission is received by them. Further, the AO carried out enquiries at the given address of the recipient of the expenses, Subhshree Hirise Pvt. Ltd. (SHPL) and found out that the said concern

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

purchase and sale of unquoted shares through group concerns. It was also accepted on oath by Sri Aggrawal that for such accommodation entries, only commission is received by them. Further, the AO carried out enquiries at the given address of the recipient of the expenses, Subhshree Hirise Pvt. Ltd. (SHPL) and found out that the said concern

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

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

36,66,490/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on which tax was payable under Section 115BBE of the Act. A penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC of the Act was also initiated on the ground that the assessee has failed to give any explanation on the source of cash deposits in response

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)

36) Please furnish details of fixed assets added, also furnish the documentary evidence of same. (37) Please furnish the details of immovable property sold/purchased. Sl. No. Sale/purchase deed no Area Sale/purchase Stamp value with date consideration (38) Please furnish copies of sales tax / VAT return filed along with copies of challans of agricultural tax/sales tax/VAT paid/service tax/excise duty paid

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