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

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’).

139, or in response to a notice under sub section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) The total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (iv) disallowance of expenditure (or increase in income) indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing

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

disallow the claim of carried forward of loss at Rs.1,22,04, 26,668/- in terms of section 139(3) read with section 80 of Income tax Act, 1961 which the assessee had claimed in a returns of income filed u/s 139(4

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

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(4

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) ..

disallowed the claim of income not chargeable to tax u/s. 10 was denied. As the dispute is relates to the provision of section 10(23C)(iiiad) it would be relevant to go through the provision of the Act which reads as under: (23C) any income received by any person on behalf of— (i) the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of commission\nexpenditure: ₹3,00,000 by assessing the total income of assessee at\n*22,69,680.\n3.\nAggrieved by the above order the assessee went in appeal where the\nld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the reassessment as well\nas additions.\n4.\nDissatisfied with the above order the assessee is in appeal before\nthis tribunal

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

139(1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favor of assessee”. 4. A perusal of the above would reveal that the ITAT, Kolkata has specifically propounded that if employees’ contribution received by an assessee and paid to ESI and PF accounts before the due date of filing of the return, then

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

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

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

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]

section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee’s contribution if made before return filing date under 139(1). iii. That the order of CPC is a mistake apparent from record and in gross violation of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Jharkhand High Court

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]

section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee’s contribution if made before return filing date under 139(1). iii. That the order of CPC is a mistake apparent from record and in gross violation of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Jharkhand High Court

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

disallows the employees’ contribution made in PF and ESI if not made within the due date as prescribed by the respective statutes (PF and ESI Act). So after the amendment has been inserted according to Shri Miraj D Shah takes effect from 1st April, 2021 i.e AY 2021- A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur 22 and subsequent assessment

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

disallows the employees’ contribution made in PF and ESI if not made within the due date as prescribed by the respective statutes (PF and ESI Act). So after the amendment has been inserted according to Shri Miraj D Shah takes effect from 1st April, 2021 i.e AY 2021- A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur 22 and subsequent assessment

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

139(1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favor of assessee”. Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Exman Security Services Pvt. Limited 4. A perusal of the above would reveal that the ITAT, Kolkata has specifically propounded that if employees’ contribution received by an assessee and paid

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

139(1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favor of assessee”. Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Exman Security Services Pvt. Limited 4. A perusal of the above would reveal that the ITAT, Kolkata has specifically propounded that if employees’ contribution received by an assessee and paid

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]

4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure at the Chaibasa site office though the employee out of the income arisen there, which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts

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]

4. For that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty on alleged addition of Rs. 54,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. It is admitted fact the addition related to the expenditure at the Chaibasa site office though the employee out of the income arisen there, which were not recorded in the regular books of accounts