M/S. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 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 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure Allowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) Assessee- company was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed expenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen, hostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same on ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained and that assessee

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

section 10(23)( c )(vi) of the IT Act and has held that mere surplus does not mean that institution is existing for M/s. Church School making profit. The predominant object test must be applied. Hon’ble Apex Court while affirming the decision of Punjab and Haryana High court in case of Pine Grove international charitable trust v/s Union

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

disallowed Rs.1,02,98,103.15 and added the same to the income of the assessee. 13. Before the CIT(A), ld A.R. of the assessee argued that the assessee owns vehicles, building, staff quarters, furnitures and other assets on which depreciation has been claimed. It has also been contended that the income of a charitable trust as contemplated by section

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

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

section 40(a)(ai) of the I.T.Act,1961 same is disallowable expenditure. Further as the details & ledger furnished by the assessee under the head Architect Drawing & MAP Approval are contradictory to each other, 10% of Rs.7,11,280/- (12,50,562 - 2011282 - 3,38,000) is disallowed & to total income of the assessee. Thus total of expenditure disallowed under this

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

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

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 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

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

10-11. We further find that no submissions were made by the ld.DR before us that the appeal, if any, challenging the same is pending before the Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court. The AO cannot make addition on adhoc basis and it is a settled principle of law that no such disallowance can be made on adhoc basis

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 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 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

Section 14A of the Act was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was submitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment made. 33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of securitization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years the Id.CIT(A) has held this

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure Allowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee- company was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed expenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen, hostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same on ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained and that assessee

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 164,165,166,167,168,169,170&266/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.32/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 & 191/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.119, 120, 74/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177,178 & 235/Ran/2017 (Α.Υ:2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.37/Ran/2018 (Ay: 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.174 & 175/Ran/2019 (Ay:2015-16 & 2016-17) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.47, 203, 204, 128/Ran/2024 (Ay: 2017-2018, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Addl.Cit, Range-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Office Of Gm Finance-A, Opp. Governor House Ranchi-834001 (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.Κ.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 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 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017, 30.01.2019, 21.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 20.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 For The

Section 14A of the Act was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was submitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment made. 33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of securitization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years the Id.CIT(A) has held this