CHOTANAGPUR CATHOLIC MISSION CO – OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY ,RANCHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI, RANCHI

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash deposited during the demonetization period and has made a disallowance on that issue. The fact that the members of the society

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

cash deposits made in the bank account which related to business of building material supply and construction. The deposits made are explained. Only the net profit earned from the business u/s 44AD could have been added. However, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate submission made by the appellant. 3. For that Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming

VISHNU KUMAR BHARTIA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-3(2), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayvishnu Kumar Bhartia, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Madhur Mani, Morth Market Ward 3(2), Vs. Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001. Ranchi. Pan No. Adgpb 9180 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed cash deposit of ₹ 4,63,709/-. It was a submission that this amount of ₹ 4,63,709/- represented the disallowance

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD NO.1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

deposited in FDR and NSC which was required to be furnished by way of security for securing the contract work and therefore it should have been treated as income from business and not from other sources. The other grievance of the assessee was that he should have been allowed depreciation allowance out of the net contractual receipt finally estimated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

cash was deposited in the accounts of the share subscriber prior to encashment of cheques issued in appellant’s favour and the bank statements also substantiated that the share subscriber regularly conducted high value monetary transactions with several other persons and it was not a case where the shares subscribers had financial transactions only with the assessee and the Assessing

SHYAM SUNDER BHAGAT,PAKUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), DHANBAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

cash deposits immediately in his bank account before advancing the loan in question but also filed income tax return much after the relevant previous year. All this sufficiently indicates that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus. I accordingly confirm the impugned addition of Rs.5 lakhs in these facts and circumstances. 4. Next comes depreciation disallowance

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

cash deposit of Rs. 62,00,000/- chargeable to tax got escaped from the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act. Hence, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2015-16". 2 Kumar Pratik Vs ITO In response to the notice issued under Section

ASHOK KUMAR ,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godarai.T.A No.212/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Kumar, Bokaro Vs. Ito, Wd-3(1), Bokaro Purulia Road, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhan-827013. Pan/Gir No. : Aiqpk5881K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

deposited in the bank account(s) as unexplained cash credits. The assessee appears to have explained that the same came from six parties. He also filed said six parties’ confirmations and bank accounts before the Assessing Officer who declined the same after holding that mere filing such confirmations and documentary evidence does not satisfactorily discharge the taxpayer’s onus

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

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, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad & 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) निर्धारिती 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 / Order Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

disallowances and how the figures were arrived at in this assessment order. The order sheet noting reads as follows :- ITA 291/RAN/2017 (Assessment Year: 09-10) In the case of M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED vs. ACIT CIR-1 Assessee represented by: M.K. Choudhary, with Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by: RINKU SINGH, CIT DR Ld. CITDR is directed to have

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)

Cash basis exceeding Rs. 20,000/- which is not an allowable expenditure. The assessee had also debited Security Deposit in the Profit and Loss account amounting to Rs. 26,57,044/- which is also not an allowable expenditure, being capital in nature. Hence there was reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment within the meaning

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

disallowances and how the figures were arrived at in this assessment order. The order sheet noting reads as follows :- 7 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Government of India कार्यालय अपर आयकर आयुक्त (आई. टी. ए. टी.) OFFICE OF THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ITAT) केन्द्रीय राजस्व भवन (एनेक्सी), मेन रोड, राँची CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING (ANNEXE), MAIN ROAD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

disallowances and how the figures were arrived at in this assessment order. The order sheet noting reads as follows :- 9 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. भारत सरकार Government of India उप/सहायक आयकर आयुक्त या कार्यालय कार्यालय अपर / संयुक्त आ०आ०, आई. टी.ए.टी. रॉची Office of Addi./Jt. CIT, ITAT, Ranchi 557 Office of the Dy./Assistant Commissioner

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

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) (Α.Υ :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) निर्धारिती 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 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Bench : आदेश / Order These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Id.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011- 12 & 2012-13, Respectively. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objections Arising Out Of Appeals Of Revenue For A.Y.2009-2010 & 2011-2012. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeals Of The Revenue Filed For A.Y.2009- 2010 & 2011-2012. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Filed A Chart Specifying The Issues Involved In The Appeals Of The Revenue, Which Reads As Follows :- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad Pan: Aaacb7934M Additions Disputed In Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

disallowances and how the figures were arrived at in this assessment order. The order sheet noting reads as follows :- Bench: 29 DB ITA 291/RAN/2017 (Assessment Year: 09-10) In the case of M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED vs. ACIT CIR-1 Assessee represented by: M.K. Choudhary, with Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by: RINKU SINGH

SHAMBHU SHARAN GIRI,LAKHANSAI NOAMUNDI BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 47, C.H. AREA, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO on the ground of bills and vouchers were not produced and most of the payments were made in cash to the employees. 5. After perusing the material on record, we observe that the assessee is an agent