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)

section 148 proceedings and 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

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)

4 crores as loss & damage expences. (vi). Amount debited to profit and loss account of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as donation to Bioved Research Society. (vii) Expenses incurred of Rs. 86,30,170/- , by the statement of Mr. Samar Das Gupta. (viii).Advances recoverable of Rs. 96,79,129/- shown in balance sheet. (ix).Details of sundry debtors

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

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings of AO, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

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

4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings of AO, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

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

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

4 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & ITA Nos. 53 & 54/RAN/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh and made a substantive addition under section 69A of the Act and for loan taken from her son, substantive addition of Rs.3,54,000/- made in the hands of Kamlesh Kumar Singh and on protective basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

purchased the flat at a consideration Rs.14,75,000/- as settled vide agreement of sale dated 19.01.2011. 5. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the above contention of the assessee observing that the advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as mentioned in the said agreement was paid in cash and therefore, as required

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

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

4. We observe in this backdrop of facts that there is no dispute about the assessee having recorded the sundry creditors liability in question as pertaining to material purchases in the regular course of business. There is no denial from the department side qua the clinching aspect the corresponding material purchases have already been accepted under the head regular revenue

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

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, confirmed the order of Assessing Officer on the ground that, though, the appellant had given the details of monthwise cash deposits in different bank accounts made during

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

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, 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]

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 of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 4.3.2016. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), after discussing

RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115BBE of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017. 3. During the course of appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of Ld. AO. 4. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we note that undisputedly that M/s. Kailash Auto

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

section 133(6) were issued to Bombay Stock Exchange, National Stock Exchange, Concerned brokers. Despite the above, the AO treated the LTCG of ₹30,55,833 as bogus, holding that the transaction was part of a pre-arranged penny stock scheme, and added the same to the total income. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred

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

section 131 of I.T.Act, 1961 of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Director of the assessee company in which he confirmed and accepted that the short term capital loss was bogus. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified on focusing at the sentence that "he was successful in bringing back his own accounted

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

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business are relevant and they cannot be discarded in the absence of appropriate reasons. The mere fact that recipient did not reply in some cases or they were not found at the address furnished by the assessee does not in the least

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

sections 1471148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 3. The above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable in above

SHRI GAURAV PALRIWAL,RANCHI 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

sections 1471148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 3. The above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable in above