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]

depreciation chart as part of books of account of the assessee and deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that this appeal should not have been filed by the revenue

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]

depreciation chart as part of books of account of the assessee and deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that this appeal should not have been filed by the revenue

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)

section 234 B and 234D, theseare consequential in nature. Consequently, additional grounds raised by the assessee stand disposed as per the above direction. 9. Now coming to the main appeal filed the assessee, Ground No.1 is general in nature and consequently not adjudicated. 10. In Ground No.2, the same has three limbs. In Ground No.2.2, most specifically Ground No.2.2.2

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

depreciation has already been\nadjudicated in the assessee's own case by the coordinate bench of the\nTribunal, respectfully following the observations of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal and for the identical reasons, the order of the Id. CIT(A) stands\nupheld and the issue is held in favour of the assessee and against the\nrevenue.\n5.\nNext issue

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

3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) 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

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

3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) 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

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

Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 39,98,32,440/- (iii) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 24,09,000/- (iv) Grants to Sports Recreation & Grants of ₹ 11,67,32,000/- School & Institutions (v) Community Development & Environmental ₹ 12,24,87,000/- Expenditure (vi) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 47,39,30,000/- (vii) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 56,93,18,000/- (viii) IICM Charges

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 ₹ 39,98,32,440/- (iii) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 24,09,000/- (iv) Grants to Sports Recreation & Grants of ₹ 11,67,32,000/- School & Institutions (v) Community Development & Environmental ₹ 12,24,87,000/- Expenditure (vi) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 47,39,30,000/- (vii) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 56,93,18,000/- (viii) IICM Charges

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

3. In response to the above query, the assessee submitted all the details and also produced books of account and were duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also placed reliance on various decisions in support of its claim of depreciation. The Assessing Officer considered the same but disallowed the depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,62,10,53,316/- claimed

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

3. In response to the above query, the assessee submitted all the details and also produced books of account and were duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also placed reliance on various decisions in support of its claim of depreciation. The Assessing Officer considered the same but disallowed the depreciation amounting to ₹ 1,62,10,53,316/- claimed

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

depreciation has already been\nadjudicated in the assessee's own case by the coordinate bench of the\nTribunal, respectfully following the observations of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal and for the identical reasons, the order of the Id. CIT(A) stands\nupheld and the issue is held in favour of the assessee and against the\nrevenue.\n5.\nNext issue

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

depreciation has already been\nadjudicated in the assessee's own case by the coordinate bench of the\nTribunal, respectfully following the observations of the coordinate bench of\nthe Tribunal and for the identical reasons, the order of the Id. CIT(A) stands\nupheld and the issue is held in favour of the assessee and against the\nrevenue.\n5.\nNext issue

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , 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,RNCHI 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

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

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

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.\nWe have considered the submissions of the both the sides.\nAdmittedly