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

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

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

bogus sundry creditor liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. More so, when there is no indication about the said sum involving any cessation or remission of liability as per this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) Kolkata vs. M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.2620/Kol/2013 decided on 07.09.2016 holding as under

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”).

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, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 of I.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 the Act dated 22.11.2019, i.e., after the expiry of four years from

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

M/S. SRIRAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,RAMGARH vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus share application money and share premium from the said two companies as per the facts available on the assessment record. According to Ld. PCIT, the AO has failed to examine the investment and issue of share capital and share premium and thus has not verified the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions which has rendered

M/S. SRIRAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,RAMGARH vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

bogus share application money and share premium from the said two companies as per the facts available on the assessment record. According to Ld. PCIT, the AO has failed to examine the investment and issue of share capital and share premium and thus has not verified the identity, creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions which has rendered

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

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)

40) Please furnish details of transportation expenses and evidence of TDS Done On Same. (41) Please furnish details of Sub Contract expenses and evidence of TDS Done On Same. (42) Please furnish the detail break up of ‘other income’. Padam Kumar Jain Assessment Year: 2012-13 I may be noted that time and date of hearing must be strictly adhered