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

13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is disallowed. The notices U/s 133(6) were not issued rightly

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’).

8 I.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80- IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond

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

13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years the depreciation\nhas been claimed treating the forest land lease as an intangible

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

8. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue, in its submissions, justified the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and stated that these expenses are penal in nature and thus, the same cannot be allowed under Section 37 of the Act because the assessee BCCL is discharging the liability on behalf of coal buyers and it was the primary responsibility

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

8. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue, in its submissions, justified the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and stated that these expenses are penal in nature and thus, the same cannot be allowed under Section 37 of the Act because the assessee BCCL is discharging the liability on behalf of coal buyers and it was the primary responsibility

RAJESH JALAN,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Addition under Section 69A of the Act ₹20,86,500/- (Introduction of Capital) The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had introduced total capital of ₹27,02,500/- in his proprietary business during the year, of which ₹6,16,000/- was through bank and the balance ₹20,86,500/- was claimed to be out of cash in hand

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

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

disallowed related business expenses. Such issues were never part of the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. It was contended that the Assessing Officer had clearly travelled beyond the scope of jurisdiction conferred by the notice under section 148A(b), and therefore, no addition or reclassification could have been made on issues which were

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]

disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- 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

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]

disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- 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

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

13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years the depreciation\nhas been claimed treating the forest land lease as an intangible

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years the depreciation\nhas been claimed treating the forest land lease as an intangible

ACIT, CENTRALC CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. IMPERIAL AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

13. P a g e 1 | 8 Assessment Year : 2012-13 2. Smt. Rinku Singh, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue and Shri R.R.Mittal, ld AR appeared for the assessee. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the impugned assessment year is 2012-13 and the original assessment order came to be passed u/s.143

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

8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed\ndepreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed\ndepreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A.Y. 2001-02 got\ncarried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became\npart thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section\n32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were

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

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

8. C. Srinivas Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) - and PNB Finance Limited v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC), in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined international transaction to tax is fraught with the danger of invalidation. In the present case, in the absence of there being on international transaction involving AMP spend with on ascertainable

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

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (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 : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 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 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show cause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of Rs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 8

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

In the result, all the captioned appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad............................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................……...…..…..Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] I.T.A No.123/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd........................................................…… Respondent Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant C.O No.08/Ran/2018 (In Ita No.299/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd..................................................... …Cross-Objector Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagara, Dhanbad—826005 [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit,Central-1, Dhanbad..............................................……...…..….. Appellant Appearances By: Shri Rinku Singh, Cit- Dr., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri M. K. Choudhary With Devesh Poddar, Adv Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2023

disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- 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