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:

69,248/- out of the total deduction claimed u/s 54F for Rs.73,21,565/-. Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said disallowance observe that the amount invested in 2 years from the sale can only be allowed. On the other hand, we claimed that deduction for amount shall be upto investment made in 3 years as a flat in under construction

SRI BINOY KUMAR SINGH, ,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

69 unexplained investment addition of ₹115,12,000/- invoked during the regular assessment in issue. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned addition u/s 56(2)(vii) never formed subject- matter of assessee’s grounds in the lower appellate proceedings nor any such issue had arisen in the assessment order. This tribunal’s co-ordinate

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 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 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

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