M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. The AO finally imposed the penalty which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed that

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

11,42,971/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation

NITU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

RINKU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

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

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s 147 is bad eye of law and fit to be cancelled

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s 147 is bad eye of law and fit to be cancelled

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also not accepted

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”). 2. First we shall take assessee’s appeal in ITA NO. 243/Ran/2016 for A.Y. 2009- 10. 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. Assessing officer does not consider sale of land as business income instead of capital gain, he is also not accepted

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

11-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22-02-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal filed by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 04-10-2016 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi, which in turn arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income

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

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Capital gains' which is one of the heads of income. If by application of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 48 which are integrally connected with each other, the income cannot be said to arise, Section 92 of the Act does not come to the aid of Revenue, even though it is an international transaction. The expression 'income

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever." 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

GAJANAN FERRO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed

GAJANAN FERRO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee claimed