GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

NITU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

RINKU SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

condone the delay. 5. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. DCIT, Central Circle Jamshedpur, based on defective notice u/s 274 of the Act and further erred in not following the precedence of the predecessor CIT(A) as also in not following the directions

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

11,42,971/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 11,24,721/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)( c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds

CHANDRAVANSHI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,GARHWA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Chandravanshi Educational Foundation, C.I.T.(Exemption), C/O-R C Chandravanshi Welfare Trust, Patna. Vs. Garhwa-833114 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aagcc 7713 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

C Chandravanshi Welfare Trust, Patna. Vs. Garhwa-833114 (Jharkhand) PAN No. AAGCC 7713 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, A.R. Department represented by Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, CIT-DR Date of hearing 12/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 29/01/2026 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case