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]

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 49,43,85,000/- 4. The ld. AO further disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss

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

section\n32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for\ncarry forward and set off against the profits and gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra

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

section\n32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for\ncarry forward and set off against the profits and gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra

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

section\n32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for\ncarry forward and set off against the profits and gains of\nsubsequent years without any limit whatsoever.\"\n8. In the light of the judicial precedents on the issue especially that\nof the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of General Motors India\nPvt. Ltd. (supra

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-

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 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

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

Depreciation on Plant & Machinery has been claimed at 30% instead of 15% as the same were self used. 3. That with respect to the issue that is Hire Charges was paid to 7 persons on whom TDS was not deducted, PCIT observed that the Ld AO has conducted enquiry in case of 5 entities and overlooked to conduct any enquiry

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

section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the assessee having held that the expenditure in question was in the nature of capital expenditure and was thus not a deductible allowance [5.3.5] On appreciation of the facts of the case

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

section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the assessee having held that the expenditure in question was in the nature of capital expenditure and was thus not a deductible allowance [5.3.5] On appreciation of the facts of the case

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

depreciate. Lease hold Land The payment made for the purposes of carrying on business of trading activity and therefore it partakes character of revenue expenditure. M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. 2. Land & Crop 24,09,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. Total Rs. 40,22,41,440/- As such the penalty imposed

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

depreciate. Lease hold Land The payment made for the purposes of carrying on business of trading activity and therefore it partakes character of revenue expenditure. M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. 2. Land & Crop 24,09,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. Total Rs. 40,22,41,440/- As such the penalty imposed

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. 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

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

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 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