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

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”).

50,84,454/-. It is apparent that the impugned order has thus, travelled beyond the scope of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also clear that there is also a question as to the credibility

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

50%- enhancement\n35,29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n17\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\nTotal

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A/234B\nTotal Rs.\nGrand total Disputes

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

50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n5,10,00,000\n65,48,51,116\n35,29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal

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

50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\nBy Assessee\n68,31,00,000\n1,00,000\nNo appeal\nBy Assessee\nBy Assessee\n99,64,95,453\nBy Assessee\n74,74,00,000\nBy Assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses\n14 Stripping Activity Adjustment\n15 R & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16 Expense u/s 35E\n17 Int. u/s 234A / 234B\nAY 2016-17\n191/RAN/2019\nBy Assessee\n68,31,00,000\n1,00,000\nAY 2017-18\nNo appeal\nBy Assessee\nAY 2018-19\nAY 2019-20\nAY 2020-21\nBy Assessee

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

50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses\n14 Stripping Activity Adjustment\n15 R & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16 Expense u/s 35E\n17 Int. u/s 234A / 234B

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

50%- enhancement\n35,29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\nRepair expenses\n36,08,20,000\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\nTotal

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

50%- enhancement\n35,29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n17\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal

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

50%- enhancement\n35,29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n36,08,20,000\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\n17\nInt. u/s 234A/234B\nTotal

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

50%- enhancement\n36,08,20,000\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard

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

50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses\n14 Stripping Activity Adjustment\n15 R & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16 Expense u/s 35E\n17 Int. u/s 234A / 234B\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes

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

Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of Assessing Officer and directed him to make a fresh assessment considering the findings on the issues discussed on each issue and the conclusions drawn. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, this appeal by the assessee, has been preferred before us. During the appellate proceedings before

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

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.172,173,174,175,176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (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 : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 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 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

depreciation and the issue has not been adjudicated by the AO or assessment has been done, the amortization shall be done and be calculated and where excess relief has been granted to the assessee, the same shall be withdrawn and where the short relief has been granted to the assessee, the appropriate relief shall be granted. With these directions these