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 of Rs. 30

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

section 10(38) of the Act was genuine and justified and in no way can be held to be assessed in the hands of assessee’s husband Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh. Thus the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition substantively in the hands of her husband. Since the alleged LTCG is a genuine one and cannot

DR. JAYA NARAYAN NAIK vs. THE JOINT C.I.T.,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2010-2011

capital gains account and later on the same was transferred to fixed deposit account. No details of the same were furnished before us at the time of hearing. Hence, we set aside the addition of Rs.26 lakhs to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify once again whether the deposit of money of Rs.26 lakhs in bank account fulfil

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

capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal has confirmed the addition so made. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 218 pages. Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that the approval from the competent authority for issuing notice u/s. 148 was obtained

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal has confirmed the addition so made. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 218 pages. Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that the approval from the competent authority for issuing notice u/s. 148 was obtained

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 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the 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

VIKASH KUMAR TAPADIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.235/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Kumar Tapadia….........................…...........................……….……Appellant Tapadia Compound, Chowk Bazar, Jugsalai (Jharkhand)-831006.. [Pan: Acnpt2711L] Vs. Ito, Jamshedpur……………………………….……........……...…..…..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 : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 03.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter "The Act") By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter "The Ld. Cit(A)]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transaction. However, Assessee Has Not Disclosed The Same In The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year. In View Of The Above Fact After Giving Opportunity As Per Section 148A & Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Or U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed On 30.03.2022. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return Of Income. However, In Compliance To The Notice, The Assessee Did Not Respond & The Ao View That Unexplained Loan U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs. 9,00,000/- Unexplained Money U/S 69C Of The Act, Rs. 60,44,241/- & Capital Gains Of Rs. 30,54,000/-

section 148A and obtaining approval from the competent authority or u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act requesting the assessee to file return of income. However, in compliance to the notice, the assessee did not respond and the AO view that unexplained loan

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains

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

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/

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 despite service of notice, therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds

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

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.)

30-11-2011, respectively. 2. Since these two appeals pertain to the same assessee, different assessment years, common and identical issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed Page1 and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. A.Ys 2008-09 & ’09-10 Deoghar Jamtara Central Co-op Bank

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.)

30 to 36, (c) the expenditure must not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, (d) the expenditure must have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. (d) that it should not be for a purpose which is considered to be an offence or which

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.)

30 to 36, (c) the expenditure must not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, (d) the expenditure must have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. (d) that it should not be for a purpose which is considered to be an offence or which

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.)

30 to 36, (c) the expenditure must not be in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, (d) the expenditure must have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession. (d) that it should not be for a purpose which is considered to be an offence or which

SMITA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(4),, CHAIBASA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

30 lakhs, whereas the stamp duty value as per State valuation authority was ₹46.50 lakhs, resulting in alleged escapement of income chargeable to tax.The Assessing Officer completed reassessment by adopting the stamp duty valuation and made addition by computing capital gains accordingly, along with levy of tax and interest vide order dated 30.03.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

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”).

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, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate either the legal

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

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