PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

disallowed under any circumstances. 2. As required in para 2 of your notice, we would like to bring to your notice that the assessee has claimed the following expenses under the head “Mines Development” Expense for a total of Rs. 2,31,97,746.00 during the relevant previous year 2011-12: Expenses Amount in (Rs.) Overburden Removal 1

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

154 dated 17.10.2022, the Return was processed on the same income as per earlier processing u/s 143(1) dated 28.10.2021 and repeated the aforesaid adjustment of Rs. 21,82,243/-, without giving a reasoned order and the grounds on which the claim of the appellant was not accepted. 1.4 That it is started and submitted that Ld. AO erred

JUSCO EDUCATION MISSION FOUNDATION ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE , RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

154/- made by the Assessing Officer by denying the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the appellant has filed this appeal before us. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee society is duly recognized and approved by the Central Board

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show cause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of Rs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

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

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat - By It Department Si No.

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show cause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of Rs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. KESHAVJI CHHAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD , JSR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

disallowed by AO on the ground of excess payment of interest over 12% of Rs.35,98,695/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act 1961 given on the unsecured loans by the assessee? As per Section 40(b)(iv) payment of interest to partners is restricted to 12% which was forming basis of fair market rate”. 4. Brief facts

MAA CHINNA CEMENT & ISPAT (P) LTD,HAZARIBAGH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiरोक आवेदन (S.A. No.01/Ran/2020 (Arising Out Ita No.203/Ran/2019) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:-2015-16

154. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the following companies have invested the following amounts in the assessee company: 1. Nagina Exports & Finvest Pvt Ltd,. : Rs. 4,83,00,000 2. Tolasariya Viniyog Pvt Ltd. : Rs. 4,36,00,000 3. Lupin Commodeal