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

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

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

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

30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order Dt. 18.08.2023 of\nAY 2013-14 u/s 143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000\n2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed

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

30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order Dt. 18.08.2023 of\nAY 2013-14 u/s 143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000\n2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed

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

30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order Dt. 18.08.2023 of\nAY 2013-14 u/s 143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000\n2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed

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

30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order Dt. 18.08.2023 of\nAY 2013-14 u/s 143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000 2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed