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

32 for the purpose of depreciation. M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. 2. Land & Crop 12,00,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. Total Rs. 8,86,00,000/- As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without appreciating the facts and the law which

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

32 for the purpose of depreciation. M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. 2. Land & Crop 12,00,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. Total Rs. 8,86,00,000/- As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without appreciating the facts and the law which

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, the Act) on the following grounds: (i) The assets are not owned by the assessee and vests with the State Government. (ii

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, the Act) on the following grounds: (i) The assets are not owned by the assessee and vests with the State Government. (ii

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

32(2)", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D(2)(ii)", "Rule 8D(2)(iii)", "Section 132", "Section 40(a)(ia)", "Section 37(1)", "Rule 46A"], "issues": "The core issues revolved around the allowability of unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

ACIT CIRCLE-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. Next 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

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

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