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 I.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey creating a total tax liability of Rs. 298812.00 against the assessed tax liability of 98151.00. 5. As a result of order under section 143(1) a net refund of Rs. 72257.00 was raised against the total refund of 272920.00 6. Appeal was preferred with CIT(A) through NFAC, citing

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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 143(3) in his case, such disallowance would be 2 I.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Bharat Coking

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

disallowance in question cannot be made as a prima facie adjustment, while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The issue whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act and the issue whether the activities of the assessee confirm the provisions u/s 2(15) of the Act and the provision of Section

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

143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000\n2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed\ndepreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely\ncovered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case\nfor the assessment year

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

143(2) of the 1. T. Act, 1961; dt. 29/06/2021 for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the assessee has been required to furnish its reply in substantiation and corroboration of return of income filed which has been selected under complete scrutiny. The assessee respectfully submits here below:- 1. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that during the financial

M/S PINNACLE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 5, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI-834004

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Pinnacle Capital Solutions (P) Ltd., P.C.I.T., Virdi Niwas, Jamshedpur, East Ranchi. Vs. Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. Pan No. Aaacp 9726 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to do so, the said omission resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3)", "Section 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

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

143(3) read with section 263 dated 28/03/2025 and no addition was made except some expenditure was 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

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]

143(2) as well as u/s 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

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]

143(2) as well as u/s 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

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

143(3)\n1,32,63,326\nTotal Rs.\n29,00,32,000\n2,31,42,55,288\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of unabsorbed\ndepreciation. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely\ncovered by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case\nfor the assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR vs. URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance has no adverse impact on revenue whereas the fact was that the assessee company had claimed wrong expenses, thereby misrepresented the facts and figure, liable for impositionof penaltyu/s270AoftheI.T.Act1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 270A of the I.T.Act; 1961 without considering the provisions of section 270A(2

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

S. K. TIMBERS,BURMAMINES vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by 2 AY: 2017-18 S. K. Timber the recent verdict

INDUTECH SOLUTIONS AND MANUFACTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. 2 AY: 2018-19 Indutech Solutions and Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

M/S VED TEXTILES & APPARELS,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

2. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest

ALOK KUMAR KHAITAN,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

2. At the outset, we note that the grounds of appeal relate to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest

TRIDENT METAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) NFAC, DELHI, DEILHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Trident Metal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.52,686/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict