ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

JAMSHEDPUR UTILITIES AND SERVICES COMPANY LTD,JSR vs. ACIT CIR-2, JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

JUSCO LTD ,JSR vs. DCIT CIR-2 , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

section 10(23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount under section 14A of the Act. The AO also observed that

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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 37(1) of the Act. In view of these facts, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. iv) HRD Recruitment & Training expenses - Rs. 16,75,474/- [Rs. 10,20,033/- + Rs.6,85,441/-] It is noted that the Ld. A.O. treated the expenses on HRD recruitment expenses are capital

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

10% of the basic\npay of non-executive employees as on 30.6.2001. The AO has taken\nthe view that the claim of the assessee falls in the category of\nunascertained liability, which in our view, is not correct. In the instant\ncase, there is certainty about the liability, but the exact quantification\ncould be known to the assessee

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

23, 2020. The assessee prayed that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is provided. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative of the assessee has submitted that the Bench may take an appropriate view. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, we condone the delay of 52 days

DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

23,77,00,000/- 3. Under-loading charges: The Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 for the assessment year under consideration, found that the BCCL, the assessee, has claimed expenses in its Profit & Loss Account under the head "under-loading charges” amounting to ₹121,08,1,000/-. Accordingly, notice under Section

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

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

23,77,00,000/- 3. Under-loading charges: The Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 for the assessment year under consideration, found that the BCCL, the assessee, has claimed expenses in its Profit & Loss Account under the head "under-loading charges” amounting to ₹121,08,1,000/-. Accordingly, notice under Section

SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

section 23(3).” I find that the ld. Assessing Officer has been reasonable in making the disallowance. 7. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified for making an ad hoc disallowance

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

23 DTR 266/ 320 ITR 674/180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) wherein it was held that "where the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, raised a query which was ITA 27/Ran/2024 Devprabha Construction P Ltd. Vs PCIT answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but the same was not reflected in that assessment order

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

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

10. iv) In the revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 95/Ran/17 for the A.Y 2007-08, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue relates to (i) tax deduction at source M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd (TDS) on sales promotion expenses & (ii) Liquidated damages, Misc. Provision and Provision for LTA 11. After hearing ld.DR for the Revenue, we note that

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

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

10. iv) In the revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 95/Ran/17 for the A.Y 2007-08, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue relates to (i) tax deduction at source M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd (TDS) on sales promotion expenses & (ii) Liquidated damages, Misc. Provision and Provision for LTA 11. After hearing ld.DR for the Revenue, we note that