NAMITA PANDEY,PALAMAU vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3,, 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)

capital gains at Rs. 27,20,000/- was unjustified. The appellant stated that he had also purchased a flat for a consideration of Rs. 30,72,750/-(See page 2 of the assessment order). The ld. Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 5.1. The ld. Assessing Officer has stated that the appellant had purchased

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)

capital gains at Rs. 27,20,000/- was unjustified. The appellant stated that he had also purchased a flat for a consideration of Rs. 30,72,750/-(See page 2 of the assessment order). The ld. Assessing Officer erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 5.1. The ld. Assessing Officer has stated that the appellant had purchased

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

54,000/- made in the hands of Kamlesh Kumar Singh and on protective basis in the hands of assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee also claimed long-term capital gain from sale of equity shares of M/s. Yuma Vayapar Pvt. Limited at Rs.10,60,599/-. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received from Calcutta Stock

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

2 | 9 Assessment Y ear: 2010-2011 denying the exemption of Rs.26 lakhs u/s.54 of the Act. Ld D.R. referred to the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R Vidhyadharan vs DCIT, 131 ITCL 378, wherein, it was held that the deposit of money in fixed deposit does not fulfil the requirements of capital gains

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

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance in the instant lis seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 27,66,230/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had invested the corresponding long term capital gain in the name of his wife Mrs. Manisha Bagaria

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurydilip Kumar, D.C.I.T., 4B, Dr. K.D. Choudhury Apartment, Circle-1, Vs. South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Adlpk 4085 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2) whilst adding the impugned capital gains. 5. These assessee's appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms." 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that in the consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 18/12/2019, the Assessing Officer has not followed the direction of the Tribunal and has not examined

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

section 143(2) was issued against return under 148.” 4. On confrontation of these additional grounds for their admission, Ld. Sr. DR has not raised any objection. Accordingly, the same were admitted for adjudication. 5. Since additional grounds are on the jurisdictional issue, we are inclined to take up the same first. First three additional grounds relate to approval

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(2) was issued against return under 148.” 4. On confrontation of these additional grounds for their admission, Ld. Sr. DR has not raised any objection. Accordingly, the same were admitted for adjudication. 5. Since additional grounds are on the jurisdictional issue, we are inclined to take up the same first. First three additional grounds relate to approval

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

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

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

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

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

gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that the issue is covered in favour of the\nassessee, therefore, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected

DR. SANJAY KUMAR,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

54 of the Act was not allowable as the said section is applicable only in the case of profit on sale of property used for residence and not for profit on sale of piece of land. Finally the Ld. PCIT revised the order by setting aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.10.2017 with

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure at the Chaibasa site office though the employee out of the income arisen there, which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts due to mistake of accountant. The expenditure incurred has not been doubted

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure at the Chaibasa site office though the employee out of the income arisen there, which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts due to mistake of accountant. The expenditure incurred has not been doubted

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/-

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

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)

gains of the eligible business in terms of Section 80-IA(8) of the Act." In this regard it is noted that the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of the West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 103 ITD 19 MUM [2006] 286 ITR 252 MUM has noted that the rate

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)

gains of the eligible business in terms of Section 80-IA(8) of the Act." In this regard it is noted that the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of the West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006] 103 ITD 19 MUM [2006] 286 ITR 252 MUM has noted that the rate