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’).

2(24)(x), unless the condition stipulated by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e. depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

142(1) of the Act had been issued in the course of assessment and the assessee had also responded to the same. The ld. AR drew our attention to page No. 13 of the paper book which was one of the replies filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer which reads as follows: “This is in reference

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]

142(1) were issued to the assessee. The ld. AO on the examination of the books of accounts made the following additions/disallowances: Sl. No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1 Disallowance of depreciation 33,77,40,312/- 2 Stock difference 49,47,59,000/- 3 Disallowance out of repairs & maintenance 7,41,75,000/- 4 Repair of building and plant & machinery

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]

142(1) were issued to the assessee. The ld. AO on the examination of the books of accounts made the following additions/disallowances: Sl. No. Description Amount (Rs.) 1 Disallowance of depreciation 33,77,40,312/- 2 Stock difference 49,47,59,000/- 3 Disallowance out of repairs & maintenance 7,41,75,000/- 4 Repair of building and plant & machinery

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1)", "Section 144" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation due to delayed service of notice under Section 148. 2. Whether the additions on account of alleged suppression of stock and disallowance

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response thereto, the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished various details and documents as called for. The same were examined and discussed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. During I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd the course of survey, physical inventory of stock

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

142(1) and 133(6) were not complied with because of disconnection from the employer's accounts division post-retirement. This communication gap should not be the sole reason for adverse findings against the appellant. e) Unexplained Income Claim under Section 69 The addition made under Section 69 as unexplained income is unjustified as the entire retirement benefit was explained

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

2 entities. That merely because AO formed an opinion in favour of the assessee and did not record the same in the order of assessment, will not render the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT V. Ashish Rajpal (2009) 23 DTR 266/ 320 ITR 674/180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) (High Court) - Where the assessing officer

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

disallow the exemption claimed. 3. For that the Ld. AO -ITO Exemption has no jurisdiction to reject the claim of exemption for any of the reasons mentioned in the order of assessment and disputed in this appeal. No defect or violation has been done by the appellant so as to deny the exemption claimed

M/S. U C I L ,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

142(1) of the Act which were duly served upon assessee and in response to such notices, the AR of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time and filed the details as asked for from the assessee. The ld. AO while considering the submission made by the assessee, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 2

U C I L,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

142(1) of the Act which were duly served upon assessee and in response to such notices, the AR of the assessee appeared before the AO from time to time and filed the details as asked for from the assessee. The ld. AO while considering the submission made by the assessee, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 2

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

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee i.e. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) is an undertaking of Government of India. It is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. The assessee company is engaged in coal mining. Its collieries are scattered mainly in Dhanbad district in Jharkhand and in some part of West Bengal

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

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee i.e. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) is an undertaking of Government of India. It is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. The assessee company is engaged in coal mining. Its collieries are scattered mainly in Dhanbad district in Jharkhand and in some part of West Bengal

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)

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were duly issued. The assessee produced books of account, bank statements, and other evidences. The Assessing Officer, however, made additions under Sections 68 and 69A of the Act. The relevant additions under dispute are: 1. Addition of ₹7,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Act alleged unexplained unsecured loan from

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

disallowances, including ₹3 lakhs on trip expenses and ₹6,95,692 under section 37 of the Act. However, on examination of the assessment records, the Ld. PCIT Ranchi, observed that Sundry creditors amounting to ₹2,42,35,736 were shown in the audited balance sheet, but no enquiry or verification was made during assessment proceeding and similarly issue relating

SRI GAURAV PALRIWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(3), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act determining total income of ₹ 25,63,728/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

SRI KAMAL KUMAR PALRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act determining total income of ₹ 25,63,728/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer