HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

disallowing the deduction/exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 alleging that the assessee has deduction/exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 alleging that the assessee has deduction/exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 alleging that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section

SHIV PRASAD RAM,BOKARO vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BOKARO

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Shiv Prasad Ram, I.T.O., Near Petrol Pump, Sector-9/A, Basanti Ward 3(1), Vs. More, Sector-Ix, S.O. Alkusa, Bokaro. Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aqepr 2909 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

12), 10(10) and 10(10AA). d) Failure to Substantiate Notices The learned AO did not provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to explain the retirement benefits due to insufficient communication. Multiple notices under Sections 142(1) and 133(6) were not complied with because of disconnection from the employer's accounts division post-retirement. This communication gap should

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this

NEPAL CHANDRA DEY,RANCHI vs. ASSITANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 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’).

disallowance as is indicative from the tax audit report, the proviso to section 143(1) provides that no such adjustment shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or electronic mode and it has been further provided that the response received from the assessee, if any, shall be considered before

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

12. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the above explanation given by the assessee and added this demurrage charge of ₹23,77,000,00/- being penal in nature and disallowed the same under Section

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

12. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the above explanation given by the assessee and added this demurrage charge of ₹23,77,000,00/- being penal in nature and disallowed the same under Section

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

12\nmonths of the sale of the shares. Hence, these Appeals are dismissed.”\n8.\nIt was the submission that this decision of the Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court has also been followed by the\ncoordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Ranchi Bench. The Ld. AR\nhas drawn our attention to the decision in the case of Rama\nShankar Prasad

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RANCHI vs. M/S. R.V.S. EDUCATIONAL TRUST, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through : Hybrid Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.24/Ran/2020 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ A.Y. :2016-2017) Acit, Exemption Circle, Ranchi Vs. M/S Rvs Educational Trust, C/O Binda Apartments (India) Private Limited, Siroman Nagar, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur-831012 ̾Ĉĭēıĕĸù Ĭĝń/Pan No. : Aaatr4456M (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant) (Ĥ×""ȸ/ Respondent) ..

section 11 and 12 of the said Act. (ii) Disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs.4,39,31,322/- (a) That

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 40(a)(ia) without issuing any show-cause notice or granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Such an action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the disallowance so sustained is bad in law. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

12 SCC 717. The Amendments were made to Section 36 and Section 43B by insertion of Explanations 2 and 5 respectively. In the 3 1.T.A. No. 257/Del/2022 Explanations inserted it is clarified that for the removal of doubts the provisions of these sections were amended. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

12\nmonths of the sale of the shares. Hence, these Appeals are dismissed.”\n8.\nIt was the submission that this decision of the Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court has also been followed by the\ncoordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Ranchi Bench. The Ld. AR\nhas drawn our attention to the decision in the case of Rama\nShankar Prasad

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

disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A(2b) of the Act on estimate basis being 20% of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. AR, then placed reliance on the decision made by Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of M/s Ravi Metallics Ltd Vs PCIT Sambalpur in ITA No. 34/CTK/2021 dated 30/05/2022, wherein it was held as under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR vs. MAHENDRA GOPE,, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

12,008/- on account of discrepancy in the bills and\nvouchers most-specifically non-verifiable expenses. It was the submission that\non appeal, Id CIT(A) estimated the disallowance at 10% of said unverifiable\nexpenses. It was the submission that when Rs.1.88 crores itself was non-\nverifiable, the disallowance of 10% was not permissible.\n4. Ld AR submitted that

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this

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

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

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

section 194C of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, he disallowed both the items. 11. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities are not justified in making the above disallowance because on purchase of material, no TDS was required to be deducted by the assessee. Similarly it was submitted

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this

SHAMBU DAYAL MODI,MODI PLASTIC UDYOG vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.168/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shambu Dayal Modi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Modi Plastic Udyog, Mini Shed No.-31, 32, Phase-Iii, Adityapur Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832109, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 832109. [Pan: Akxpm9308G] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 19.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹5,45,350/-. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Was Allegedly Involved In Gst Evasion By Facilitating Purchases Without Actual Movement Of Goods. As Per The Information Received From The Gst Database, The Assessee Had Shown Purchases Amounting To ₹13,12,816/- From M/S. Tumbqun Plastic During The Year Under Consideration. Based On This Information, The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceedings Under Section 148A(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

section 144 of the Act on the basis of information available on record, disallowing the purchases of ₹13,12,816/- from

EXMAM SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD., JAMSHEDPUR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, ITA No. 49/RAN/2021 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

12,837/- is deleted. 6. In ITA No. 49/RAN/2021, the first issue relates to disallowance of Rs.2,22,76,010/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards ESIC/EPF. Considering our finding in A.Y. 2018-19, this addition is deleted. 7. Apart from the above, there is more ground raised by the assessee. In these grounds, the assessee