DILIP KUMAR,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect read as under: “5. The appellant, with regard to grounds 1-3 has stated that the calculation of capital gains at Rs. 27,20,000/- was unjustified. The appellant stated that he had also purchased a flat for a consideration

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

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

capital gain was unjustified and illegal. v. For that interest u/s 234A and 234B should have been charged on the returned income and not on the assessed income following the decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. vi. For that other grounds in detail will be argued at the time of hearing. Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal Assessment Year

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assesse is a retired bank employee. Since no notice could be served upon him, he was not able to adduce evidences on his behalf. The appellant stated before AO that the property at village Pandara consisting of a house and land appurtenant

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

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

23 of the paper book filed, whereas photographs of the land is given and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) records the fact that there are gardens of mango, guava etc. on the land. She once again drew the attention of the Bench to the facts recorded in the Revenue records, copies of which are placed in the paper book

SRI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SUKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.194/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramakrishnan Nair Sukesh Kumar.…...…..................……...…..….. Appellant Quarter No.R I/1, Birla Institute Of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215. [Pan: Abtpk1985G] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley , Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

23, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 07, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.02.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee

RENU LATA TIWARY,RANCHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.161/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renu Lata Tiwary…..………….……………............................……….……Appellant Regional Director Animal Husbandry Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834008. [Pan: Aeept2902C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(5), Ranchi….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 26.09.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. While doing so, the Assessing Officer computed long-term capital gains of ₹47,23

ASHUTOSH JHA,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD -2(5), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/

23-03-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 30-04-2021 आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30-10-2018 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot sustained

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot sustained

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S HEC LTD, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot sustained

MRS. GITA SUDDE SURIE,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 36/Ran/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mrs. Gita Sudde Surie...………………………………………………………….........................Appellant 20, Park Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, Jamshedpur -831 001. [Pan: Cudps 9942 Q] Income Tax Officer.................................…………………………………..........................Respondent Ward No. 1(4), Jamshedpur. Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

23, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) Jamshedpur dated 27.11.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assessee is an individual. She is a citizen of USA. She sold immovable property along with

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 Gains earned by you during the year. Also submit relevant proof regarding, the cost of acquisition cost of improvement, if any and Sale consideration received. (23)Submit details reg. income from other sources earned by you during the year along with relevant documentary evidence. (24) Submit details of all investments made by you during the year including investments

ACIT CIR-3 (1), DEVGHAR vs. M/S DEOGHAR JAMTARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , DEOGHAR

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

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

23-03-2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, which in turn arise out of the separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 30-12-2010 & 30-11-2011, respectively. 2. Since these two appeals pertain to the same assessee, different assessment

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital expenditure. Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT Vs. Columbia Asia Hospitals (P) Ltd. (2013) 142 ITR 225 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that the HRD recruitment expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure. Having regard to facts of the case the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained in appeal and is directed to be deleted