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

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

1, while dealing with the action of the Assessing Officer to rectify a mistake and seeking to recompute and reassess the depreciation which was allowed in excess of the permissible limit, held as follows (page 9) : "When an Income-tax Officer relies upon his own records for determining the amount of depreciation and makes a mistake in doing

ACIT vs. M/S XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE,

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2009-2010

9. On the other hand, ld A.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). 10. We find that no specific error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by ld D.R. No material was brought before us to show that the approval granted to the assessee u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act or Section 12AA

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

M/S BIJAY KUMAR SANTOSH KUMAR ,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

vi) Rs.1,745/- on account of interest on late payment of sales tax; and vii) Rs.1,53,853/- on account of interest on bank credit. and framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 18.03.2013. Against which the assessee carried the matter to the CIT(A). 4. In the appellate proceedings the CIT(A) deleted the disallowances made

M/S CHURCH SCHOOL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

depreciation holding that the same is statutory in nature. The assessee is in appeal against confirmation of addition of Rs.53.88 lakhs. 8. The entire addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is based on the hypothetical assumption that the assessee is having receipts from other sources apart from fees charged for educational purposes. The revenue authorities grossly