INDU THAKUR,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathanshri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 Indu Thakur, Arvind Marg, Booty Indu Thakur, Arvind Marg, Booty Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 1(1), Road, Bariatu, Ranchi Road, Bariatu, Ranchi Ranchi Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

assessment has been reopened without reference to satisfaction for reopening and or issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. It was the submission that the reopening was bad in law and should be quashed. 5. Ld Sr DR submitted that he has called for a report from the AO and same is still awaited. He vehemently supported the order

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

reopened by him after recording the reasons and a perusal of the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are reproduced in the foregoing portion of this order, shows that the belief about the escapement of assessees income from assessments was formed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information received in the form of a communication from

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”).

reopened in case of assessee - Reason recorded by Assessing Officer was that in case of search conducted in case of one 'N', it was found that there was a syndicate operating in stock market which created long term capital gain/loss for its beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, assessee was also a beneficiary of said syndicate as it earned bogus long

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

gains disclosed in respect of the shares of M/s. Global Capital\nMarket Ltd. It was the submission that the assessment came to be\ncompleted on 19.09.2018 accepting the LTCG and the same has been\naccepted u/s.10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that in the case of\nthe assessee's son in Global Capital Market Ltd. the transaction

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A Nos.24 & 25/Ran/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 &

reopening had been initiated for the purpose of verifying the alleged bogus capital gains disclosed in respect of the shares of M/s. Global Capital Market Ltd. It was the submission that the assessment

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

reopened I.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had raised share capital of ₹4,73,00,000 by issuing 4,73,000 equity shares of ₹10 each at a premium of ₹90 per share, which according to the AO was not satisfactorily explained. Notice under section

M/S TENUGHAT EMTA COAL MINES LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(2), RANCHI

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

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reopening the assessment, the impugned assessment as well as the first appellate order deserves to be quashed. 6. Replying to above, ld Sr. DR strongly opposed to the legal ground of the assessee and submitted that the assessee earned interest income from the fixed deposits from the bank and did not disclose the same as income of the assessee. Therefore

SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

gains disclosed in respect of the shares of M/s. Global Capital\nMarket Ltd. It was the submission that the assessment came to be\ncompleted on 19.09.2018 accepting the LTCG and the same has been\naccepted u/s.10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that in the case of\nthe assessee's son in Global Capital Market Ltd. the transaction

AL KABIR POLYTECNIC,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.59/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Al Kabir Polytechnic..…………..…...…………….................……...…..….. Appellant Kabir Welfare Trust, Kapali Kabir Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur. [Pan: Aaifa3884A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 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’).

reopened the assessment u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and called for the assessee to file its return of income. The assessee filed 1 I.T.A. No.59/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Al Kabir Polytechnic its return of income and had shown an income of Rs.20,94,200/- and paid the applicable tax thereon amounting to Rs.1089,278/-. The Assessing Officer

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)

capital gain. (xvii) Balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank statement etc. The assessee submitted the documents and details, as mentioned above, during the original assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. During the original assessment proceedings(before first 263 order), the Padam Kumar Jain Assessment Year

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS&STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reopening the assessment was accorded and therefore should not go to the root of the matter. The Ld. D.R. prayed that it is curable defects which can be taken care of by restoring the matter to the file of AO. 7. We observe that the instant assessment year is 2007-08 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.03.2015. Apparently

ITO WD -2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS &STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reopening the assessment was accorded and therefore should not go to the root of the matter. The Ld. D.R. prayed that it is curable defects which can be taken care of by restoring the matter to the file of AO. 7. We observe that the instant assessment year is 2007-08 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.03.2015. Apparently

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

capital gains through certain scripts and alleged accommodation entries, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons under section 147 of the Act. A notice under section 148 was issued the assessee filed its return declaring the same income I.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd as earlier. Assessee had filed objections to reopening

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

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 of ₹30,55,833, claimed as exempt, arising from sale of equity shares on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The case was reopened