M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

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

disallowance as made by the AO is deleted in its entirety. Consequently, additional grounds No.1.4 and 1.5 of the assessee stand allowed. 8. Coming to additional Ground No.1.6, same is against interest under section 244A of the Act. No arguments have been placed. Ground No.1.7 is against interest under section 234 B and 234D, theseare consequential in nature. Consequently, additional

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

31 DTR 93 /229 CTR 27 I 329 ITR 289 / 185 Taxman 356 (Delhi) wherein it was held that where the Assessing Officer takes one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which results in a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest

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

10 (2) (xv) of the Act (Indian income Tax Act, 1922) if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law" 10.13 It may be noted that the above-mentioned view has further also been highlighted and reiterated by the Delhi High Court in the decision of Whirlpool Of India Ltd [ITA 610/ 2014] and Honda Siel Power Products

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

31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed\ndepreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely\ncovered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case\nfor the assessment year 2008-2009 in ITA No.298/Ran/2017, order dated\n31.03.2023, wherein in para 7, the coordinate

JAI LAXMI TRADERS,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jai Laxmi Traders, Dcit/Acit, Office No. 423, 2Nd Floor City Centre, Circle-1, Vs. Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 Dhanbad. Pan No. Aalfj 7433 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10,52,253.69, is factually incorrect. It is a settled principle that without rejection or objecting the books of accounts, no addition can be made. In the absence of specific defects in the books, additions based solely on estimated profits ignoring the unique commercial and market conditions of each business are unjustified and liable to be deleted. B. FOR THAT

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

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

31,00,000\n1,00,000\n3\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\n4\nRehabilitation fund Contribution Expenses\n5\nIICM Charges\n92,10,000\n6\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n7\nMine Closure Expenses\n8\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\n9\nu/s 14A\n10 Disallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n11 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n12 Prior period

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI vs. SHRI KAMAL BHUSHAN, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.(Ss)A. No. 1/Ran/2021 I.T.(Ss)A. No. 5/Ran/2019

disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,31,67,556/- claimed under the head ‘Purchases & Payment made for plots, lands & building’ despite the fact that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed\ndepreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely\ncovered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case\nfor the assessment year 2008-2009 in ITA No.298/Ran/2017, order dated\n31.03.2023, wherein in para 7, the coordinate

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

31,00,000\n1,00,000\nAY 2017-18\nNo appeal\nBy Assessee\nAY 2018-19\nAY 2019-20\nAY 2020-21\nBy Assessee\n99,64,95,453\n119/RAN/2024 120/RAN/2024 74/RAN/2024\nBy Assessee\nBy Assessee\n74,74,00,000\n92,10,000\n5,10

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

10 years right from 1998-99 to 2007-08. Similarly, the said expenditure was also allowed in the subsequent year up to AY 2012-13. However, the contention of the assessee did not satisfy Ld. AO and he added the same by treating as capital expenditure in the order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

10 years right from 1998-99 to 2007-08. Similarly, the said expenditure was also allowed in the subsequent year up to AY 2012-13. However, the contention of the assessee did not satisfy Ld. AO and he added the same by treating as capital expenditure in the order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

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

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

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

disallowance was warranted in 2016-17. However, while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal against the direction to reopen the earlier assessment stating that the ld. CIT(A)’s power governed

CCL,RANCHI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT RG-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 (A.Y :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 (A.Y :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 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती 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 : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED, 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 (A.Y :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 (A.Y :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 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती 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 : 05/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 12.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 25.04.2027, 28.04.2017, 08.11.2017

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