JHARKHAND URJAA SANCHARAN NIGAM LTD.,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(4),, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

139(3) read with section 80 of Income tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 21.11.2019? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law to hold that the assessee was correct in disallowing

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3: The Ld. assessing officer has erred\nissuing notice under section 148 beyond the time barring date\nof 31.03.2018.\n1.1.1 That it is a matter of fact that the last date for issuance of notice\nunder section 148 qua the assessment year was 31.03.2018.\n1.1.2 That it is humbly submitted that the impugned notice under 148\nsuffered from following characteristic

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

disallowed. h. Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease of M/s Sarswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.186 ITR 278 has held that "The High Court was in error in holding that even after amalgamation of the two companies; the transferor company did not become non -existent. Instead it continued its entity in blended form with the appellant company. The High Court

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’).

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee had remitted the employees contribution to Provident Fund beyond the due date prescribed under the Provident Fund Act, but had duly remitted the same before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139

THE HAZARIBAGH CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,HAZARIBAG vs. ACIT, HAZARIBAG

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

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

139 have to be read together and hence, it is the inevitable conclusion that a return made within the time specified in sub-section (4) has to be considered as having been made within the time prescribed in sub-section(1) of the Act. Ld AR further drew our attention to the decision of this Co-ordinate bench

M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD..,RANCHI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

ST PATRICKS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W3(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

3 such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply as if it were a return required to be furnished under sub- section (1) of section 139. In this regard

JHARKHAND URJAA SANCHARAN NIGAM LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(4), RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

3) of the Act on 21/11/2019 and the Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claimed by the assessee company of Rs. 1,22,04,26,668/- to be carry forward on the ground that the return was a belated return filed under Section 139

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3,71,758/- with respect to deposit of contributions towards Employee’s provident fund under the PF Act beyond due date under the PF Act but before return filing date under 139(1). ii. That the CPC has erred in denying deduction under section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3,71,758/- with respect to deposit of contributions towards Employee’s provident fund under the PF Act beyond due date under the PF Act but before return filing date under 139(1). ii. That the CPC has erred in denying deduction under section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee

SHREE SREE BALANANDA TRUST,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). However, the assessee failed to furnish Form-10 and accordingly failed to satisfy one of the twin conditions specified under Section 13(9) of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not furnished any evidence for filing of Form-10 for the impugned assessment year

MANU KUMAR SHAHI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.8/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi…….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 94, East Plant Basti, Burmanines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831007. [Pan: Barps6204E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2021 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’).

139(5) on 18.02.2019 reducing the refund amount to Rs. 23,450/-. In the revised return, the appellant has suo moto added Rs.8,40,403/- on account of belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) on 1 I.T.A. No.8/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3). Hence, the contention of the appellant that the penalty was levied on disallowance made u/s. 14/A and adhoc disallowance is factually incorrect. Under these circumstances the main issue is whether penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) is attracted in the case of the appellant or not. In order to appreciate the issue in proper perspective, the relevant provisions of section

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3). Hence, the contention of the appellant that the penalty was levied on disallowance made u/s. 14/A and adhoc disallowance is factually incorrect. Under these circumstances the main issue is whether penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) is attracted in the case of the appellant or not. In order to appreciate the issue in proper perspective, the relevant provisions of section

PANKAJ AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

PANKAJ AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

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

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT

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

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

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

section 36(1) as well as 43B by Finance Act, 2021. The discussion made in that order read as under: “3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we find that ITAT, Kolkata has duly examined the amendment brought in by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the proposition and the discussion made by the ITAT