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’).

5. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal and statement of facts would show that the only issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. Admittedly, the issue on merits has been set at rest by the recent

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

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) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for AY: 2017-18 which was justified taking into consideration

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

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

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) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income/loss as the assessee has made

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

5: That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and\nin fact by passing order under 144 when notices under 142(1)\nwas complied with and made part of the assessment order as\nwell.\n1.3.1 That it is a matter of fact that the impugned order has been passed\nunder section 144 of the Act under best judgment.\n1.3.2

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]

5,86,94,960/-. Subsequently the AO passed order u/s 153A/143(3) on 23.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs. 6,52,94,920/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A of the Act. The AO passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) on 30.06.2017 and levied penalty of Rs.16,74,935/- being

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]

5,86,94,960/-. Subsequently the AO passed order u/s 153A/143(3) on 23.12.2016 determining the total income at Rs. 6,52,94,920/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) read with explanation 5A of the Act. The AO passed penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) on 30.06.2017 and levied penalty of Rs.16,74,935/- being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 51,67,990/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee raised fresh I.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd capital to the tune of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- from one Single Non-Banking Finance Company named Amarendra Financial Services Pvt Ltd. and the assessee

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