M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed by the Assessing Officer and following additions/disallowances were made: M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. Sl. No. Head of addition/disallowance Amount (i) Income from tax free bonds & applicability ₹ 33,45,000/- of Sec. 14A of the I.T. Act. (ii) Depreciation

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed by the Assessing Officer and following additions/disallowances were made: M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. Sl. No. Head of addition/disallowance Amount (i) Income from tax free bonds & applicability ₹ 33,45,000/- of Sec. 14A of the I.T. Act. (ii) Depreciation

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

depreciation and interest made by assessee on the premise of change in taxability head but without finding any incorrect or erroneous or false information supplied by the assessee, therefore, no penalty was leviable under section 271 (1

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

depreciation. In other words the net addition sustained is Rs.26,34,060/-(Rs.41,43,171 - 15,09,111) as against addition made of Rs.55,24,228/- and the appellant gets a part relief of Rs. 28,90,168/-. Accordingly, this ground is partly allowed.” 6. Now, before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the decision of this

JHARKHAND ROAD PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION CO. LTD,RANCHI vs. DCIT CENT. CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,62,10,53,316/- claimed as Plant and Machinery under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

JHARKHAND ROAD PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION COMPANY LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT,C.C.-1, RANCHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,62,10,53,316/- claimed as Plant and Machinery under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5. We have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5. We have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly

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

Section 37(1)", "Rule 46A"], "issues": "The core issues revolved around the allowability of unabsorbed depreciation, disallowance of contractual expenses

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]

1 Disallowance of depreciation 33,77,40,312/- 2 Stock difference 49,47,59,000/- 3 Disallowance out of repairs & maintenance 7,41,75,000/- 4 Repair of building and plant & machinery for pay 2,62,24,766/- office 5 Repairs and maintenance 2,06,44,292/- 6 Store purchase 6,78,69,000/- 7 Explosive purchases

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]

1 Disallowance of depreciation 33,77,40,312/- 2 Stock difference 49,47,59,000/- 3 Disallowance out of repairs & maintenance 7,41,75,000/- 4 Repair of building and plant & machinery for pay 2,62,24,766/- office 5 Repairs and maintenance 2,06,44,292/- 6 Store purchase 6,78,69,000/- 7 Explosive purchases

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS&STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under Section 148, need not issue such notice himself.” 8. Having

ITO WD -2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS &STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under Section 148, need not issue such notice himself.” 8. Having

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

depreciation was claimed and the issue was not adjudicated, amortization is to be calculated, and any excess/short relief adjusted. The issue is restored to the AO for readjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 37(1

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5. We have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5. We have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5.\nWe have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

depreciable asset. It was further submission that the Ld. AR on the behalf\nof the assessee that during some of the year the revenue has not made\nany disallowance on this issue of lease rental. Therefore, even if\namortisation is granted, it could lead to computation problems.\n5. We have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly