DEVEN CHAND JAIN HUF ,SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3 , RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation.” 10. In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that when the quantum of expenditure and incurring of same for the purpose of business of assessee has not been disputed by the revenue authorities, then merely because the assessee has not shown any business or profession income

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

business income and then against income under any other head. (üi) Amount of current depreciation for A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02 which

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

business income and then against income under any other head. (üi) Amount of current depreciation for A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02 which

SRI DEVEN CHAND JAIN HUF,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.39/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Deven Chand Jain Huf ..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant M.D. House, Amlatola, Chaibasa, Singhbhum(West), Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aaahd4479E] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..…...………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.11.2018 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’).

depreciation.” 10. In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that when the quantum of expenditure and incurring of same for the purpose of business of assessee has not been disputed by the revenue authorities, then merely because the assessee has not shown any business or profession income

NIRMAL KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR ,MAIN ROAD. RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirmal Nirmal Kumar Kumar Pradeep Pradeep Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Kumar, Kumar, Godrej Godrej Dealers, Dealers, Income Tax,Central Circle-1, Income Tax,Central Circle Ranchi Ranchi Pan/Gir No. .Aaahn 6882 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Choudhary, Adv Shubham Choudhary, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 2025

business of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on other items. The depreciation to the extent of Rs.2,22,574.55 is directed to be disallowed and balance of the depreciation is to be allowed by the AO in the computing the total income

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

business income. All the facts and figures were disclosed in the return and has been accepted in all the earlier Assessment ITA 400/Ran/2024 Jokhiram Durgadutt Vs DCIT Years. The assessee had paid higher taxes and due to the subsequent assessment proceedings which was upheld by the higher appellate authorities it's tax liability has been reduced and further refunds

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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)

income of the assessee. It is also noted that the expenses of ISO certificates are in the nature of regular business expenses and to meet with the market demands of recognition as to the standard quality material not M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising

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

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

depreciation has already been adjudicated in the assessee’s own case by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, respectfully following the observations of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and for the identical reasons, the order of the ld. CIT(A) stands upheld and the issue is held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Next issue

M/S. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/RAN/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.32/RAN/2018 (AY: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./ITA

M/S CHURCH SCHOOL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

income of the assessee. Further added a sum of Rs.21.22 lakhs claimed by the assessee under the head depreciation and held that depreciation cannot be allowed since no business

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD NO.1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

income from business and not from other sources. The other grievance of the assessee was that he should have been allowed depreciation

M/S BIJAY KUMAR SANTOSH KUMAR ,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

business. 5. For that depreciation @ 60% is allowable on UPS. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the same @ 15%. 6. For that Ld. CIT(A) passed an order in an arbitrary manner without considering the facts and points raised before him. Observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the disallowances made by Id. A.O. were reasonable does

ORIENT RESOURCES,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

business has not been suspended on account of mining licence having been suspended, it cannot be said that the expenses incurred by the assessee or depreciation can be denied to the assessee. This being so, the AO is directed to grant the assessee the expenses as claimed and depreciation claimed by the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal