Search: disallowance

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/RAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Verma, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234CSection 263Section 37(1)

reopened the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/148 of the Act reads as follows: “1. The assessee is a contractor owns M/s Prakash Construction Company. The assessment for the AY 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) on the total income of Rs. 64,39,650/-. Subsequently it was noticed that

M/S CHHAGANLAL AGARWAL,CHAIBASA vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/RAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.319/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Bari Bazar, Chaibasa-833201 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffc 6053 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 40

disallowance made on the basis of provision applicable upto to A.Y'. 2009-10 is unjustified, illegal and incorrect. 4. For that Ld. A.O. was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B on the assessed income. Interest should be charged on the returned income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. 5. For that other grounds

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 275/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 250Section 251

disallowance was warranted in 2016-17. However, while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reopen

INDICO MOTORS PRIVATE LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/RAN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and added back to the income of the assessee.” 4. On the above stated facts, the submission of ld A.R is that the reopening

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

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

ITA 105/RAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reopened assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer perused the record and recorded a finding that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.5,11,164/- in the assets side of the balance-sheet on account of time extension, whereas the total amount of time extension comes to Rs.10,66,443/-. He noticed a discrepancy of Rs.5,55,280/- and accordingly

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 231/RAN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

reopened. We M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd note that Schedule-18 of the Balance Sheet of the appellant company for the impugned issue reads as under:- “EMPLOYEE'S REMUNERATION & BENEFITS Workmen and Staff Welfare Expenses 305.56 (includes LTA provision 32.16 lakh (prev. Years 41.37 lakhs) made on estimated basis)” From the above Schedule 18 of the Balance Sheet, we note

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 232/RAN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

reopened. We M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd note that Schedule-18 of the Balance Sheet of the appellant company for the impugned issue reads as under:- “EMPLOYEE'S REMUNERATION & BENEFITS Workmen and Staff Welfare Expenses 305.56 (includes LTA provision 32.16 lakh (prev. Years 41.37 lakhs) made on estimated basis)” From the above Schedule 18 of the Balance Sheet, we note

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

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 95/RAN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT/ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

reopened. We M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd note that Schedule-18 of the Balance Sheet of the appellant company for the impugned issue reads as under:- “EMPLOYEE'S REMUNERATION & BENEFITS Workmen and Staff Welfare Expenses 305.56 (includes LTA provision 32.16 lakh (prev. Years 41.37 lakhs) made on estimated basis)” From the above Schedule 18 of the Balance Sheet, we note

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 80/RAN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A Nos.24 & 25/Ran/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 &

For Appellant: Shri Debesh Podder, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 153ASection 250

assessment years i.e. AYs. 2013-14 and 2015-16 stand quashed. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed. Now, We take up ITA Nos. 80 to 82/Ran/2023. 7. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issues in these appeals were against the confirmation of the addition made by disallowing the assessee

M/S. AMAN ENTERPRISES,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

disallowances of expenses was made. 2. That subsequently proceeding U/s 148 was initiated vide notice dated 18/08/2017 i.e. beyond 4 years and an order U/s 147 rws 144 was passed on 26/11/2018. 3. That the legal issue which we intend to challenge is that this impugned proceedings has been initiated beyond a period of 4 years wherein an original assessment

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Disallowance of Donation Rs. 2,00,000/-. It may be noted that assessee submitted details of first two expenses but assessing officer did not bring on record. 14. In response to the above mentioned show cause, notice under section 142(1) of the Act,the assessee has replied to the assessing officer by his letter which is reproduced below

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

reopening. Consequently, another notice under section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010, which was accepted as returned income. However, while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make further additions and assessed ₹4,75,23,253 as interest income from other sources

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 299/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to contractual expenses of Rs.23,22,00,000/-, provision for contractual expenses of Rs.29,00,00,000/- and addition of Rs.70,25,00,000/- on account of disallowance

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 123/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

Section 250Section 32(2)

reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) relating to contractual expenses of Rs.23,22,00,000/-, provision for contractual expenses of Rs.29,00,00,000/- and addition of Rs.70,25,00,000/- on account of disallowance

ACIT, CENTRALC CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. IMPERIAL AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 171/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R.Mittal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 288A

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Add: Rs.,7,73,726/- 6. As discussed above, the total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Returned loss : Rs.47,70,928/- Add: as discussed in para 5 : Rs.7,73,727/- --------------------------------- Taxable total income: Rs.39,97,202/- `Loss round u/s.288A : Rs.39,97,210/- Assessed fu/s.143(3) at a total

SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 79/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Feb 2019

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

disallowance has ever been made. As such, it is evident from records and beyond point of dispute that the assessee owned agricultural land in rural area of Bihar wherein agricultural activity was carried out over the years and same was accepted by the Income Tax Department and other government authorities. It is a well settled legal position that factual matters

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

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

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

ITA 147/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Aug 2019

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)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234A(3)Section 44ASection 80C

disallowance made on hearsay grounds is unjustified and illegal. 4. For that the interest U/s 234A and 234B should be charged on returned income and not on assessed income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. In any view the same could have been charged u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) only. 5. For that other grounds

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

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

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RAN/2018[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

disallowed for want of party wise details at the time of assessment is unjustified. As stated above, the party wise details of Rs 7.53 Cr were already furnished to CIT (A) on 19.06.20 17 during the course of hearing. The expenses incurred were verified by internal auditor, statutory auditor and CAG thereafter only accounts were finalised and passed by board