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

11-12\nUnder Section\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

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]

depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without

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]

depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without

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

Section\n300/R/17\nAY 09-10\n302/R/17\nAY 11-12\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

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-

2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years without any limit whatsoever." 8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that of the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2) of Section 263 wherein it has been provided that "for the purpose of this Section it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, the order is passed

S S CHARITABLE TRUST,DUMKA vs. CIT APPEAL, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.49/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 S S Charitable Trust..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant S S Vidya Vihar School, New Kumar Para, Near Dudhani Rasikpur, Asharam Road, Jharkhand-814110. [Pan: Aafts1387R] Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward, 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 : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee-Trust Against The Order Dated 30.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

11(2) of the Act and made the impugned addition. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment year 2016-17 was the first year for e-filing of Form No.10 and that even the CBDT has taken note

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation is not considered. Ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we observe that the issue is repetitive in nature and the assessee has been claiming the expenditure right from AY 1998- 99 till AY 2012-13 which have been allowed by the Revenue. We note that

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation is not considered. Ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we observe that the issue is repetitive in nature and the assessee has been claiming the expenditure right from AY 1998- 99 till AY 2012-13 which have been allowed by the Revenue. We note that

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

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the assessee company was engaged in the business of setting up of infrastructure facility in terms of construction of roads at various locations in Jharkhand. As per the Concession Agreement, the appellant company was engaged to develop, design, engineer, finance, procure, construct, operate and maintain 6/4/2 laning roads

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

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the assessee company was engaged in the business of setting up of infrastructure facility in terms of construction of roads at various locations in Jharkhand. As per the Concession Agreement, the appellant company was engaged to develop, design, engineer, finance, procure, construct, operate and maintain 6/4/2 laning roads

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, 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

Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide

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

Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide

ACIT.CIRCLE-1 ,, RANCHI vs. MOHINI DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation again. However, this year is prior to the amendment made in section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, reported in (2018) 300 CTR 1 (SC)/ 89 taxmann.com 127. After considering the reasoned finding

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

section 271 (1)(c)." 4. The contention of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal ) that the assessee had claimed an unallowable standard deduction of Rs. 68,36,208/- is fully compensated by way of depreciation being allowed Rs. 2,31,19,350/-. So, the revenue is no way being put at loss or in other wards the assessee

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

2 | 13 Assessment Year : 2007-08 6. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee itself has made suo moto disallowance of Rs.2,27,69,056/-, which is far in excess of the total disallowance of Rs.20

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

2. That thereafter proceedings U/s 148 was initiated vide notice dated 30/06/2021 alleging that since the ITR filed by the assessee has been treated as invalid, the income to the tune of Rs. 1,32,63,010/- (originally disclosed by the assessee) has escaped assessment. The assessee in response to the said 148 notice dated 30/06/2021, filed the return

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