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

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

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

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n12 Prior period exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\n13 Repair expenses\n14 Stripping Activity Adjustment\n15 R & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16 Expense u/s 35E\n17 Int. u/s 234A / 234B\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal

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

29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n17\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance

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

29,25,558\n99,64,95,453\n74,74,00,000\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes

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

29-31. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi)/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)/[2009] 227 CTR 133 (Delhi)[11-09-2009] The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider the aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. That

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

29 November 2013 of this Court in Vodafone-Ill." "39. In tax jurisprudence, it is well settled that following four factors are essential ingredients to a taxing statute: - (a) subject of tax; (b) person liable to pay the tax;] (c) rate at which tax is to be paid, and (d) measure or value on which the rate

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

10. We have considered the facts of the case, rival submissions and the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench and also the decision of Hon'ble High Courts on this issue. It is found that the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench has already decided this issue of “under-loading charges” in the case of assessee's sister concern

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

10. We have considered the facts of the case, rival submissions and the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench and also the decision of Hon'ble High Courts on this issue. It is found that the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench has already decided this issue of “under-loading charges” in the case of assessee's sister concern

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

10(34) of the Act. Ld. AO on perusal\nof the profit and loss accounts and books of accounts came to the\nconclusion that provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead of Rs. 1886,90,89,176/- (AY 1996-97 to 2005-06) and restricting the same for C.O. No. 07/Ran/2018

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

29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n36,08,20,000\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\n17\nInt. u/s 234A/234B\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10

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

10(34) of the Act. Ld. AO on perusal\nof the profit and loss accounts and books of accounts came to the\nconclusion that provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\nRepair expenses\n36,08,20,000\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10

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

29,25,558\n13\nRepair expenses\n14\nStripping Activity Adjustment\n15\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\n16\nExpense u/s 35E\n17\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n36,08,20,000\nPrior period exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10

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

29,25,558\n10,09,00,000\n21,99,00,000\n36,08,20,000\n39,21,891\n7,54,00,000\nTotal Rs.\n1,75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344\n82,28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance