NIRMAL KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR ,MAIN ROAD. RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirmal Nirmal Kumar Kumar Pradeep Pradeep Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Kumar, Kumar, Godrej Godrej Dealers, Dealers, Income Tax,Central Circle-1, Income Tax,Central Circle Ranchi Ranchi Pan/Gir No. .Aaahn 6882 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Choudhary, Adv Shubham Choudhary, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 2025

97,468/-. The Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and had disallowed Rs.10,51,903/. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the assessee’s claim of depreciation

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

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 271 (1)(c)." 4. The contention of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal ) that the assessee had claimed an unallowable standard deduction of Rs. 68,36,208/- is fully compensated by way of depreciation being allowed Rs. 2,31,19,350/-. So, the revenue is no way being put at loss or in other wards the assessee

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

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

CCL,RANCHI 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

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 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,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 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 ,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

SHRI KIRTIMAN SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kirtiman Singh, D.C.I.T., 357/A, Professor Colony, Karam Toli, Circle-2, Vs. Behind Abhilasha Building, Morabadi, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001. Pan No. Awmps 5592 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

97,709/- was accepted. The appellant has maintained audited books of accounts which was verifiable in past, the book result disclosed was accepted. Ld. AO was, therefore, not justified in making an estimate of profit without any valid reason and finding. No indiscriminating document was found during survey. |The estimate made, therefore, was unjustified, illegal, highly excessive and without