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

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]

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 by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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]

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 by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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

MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA,SAHARPURA, SINDRI, JHARKHAND-828122 vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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.57,28,360/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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’).

disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6. Admittedly

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]

disallowance of sum of Rs.3,32,786/- and in AY 2019-20 of Rs. 3,71,758/- being contribution of employee’ s share towards ESI and PF set up for the welfare of the employee u/s. 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x

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]

disallowance of sum of Rs.3,32,786/- and in AY 2019-20 of Rs. 3,71,758/- being contribution of employee’ s share towards ESI and PF set up for the welfare of the employee u/s. 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x

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

24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these two Acts. Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that these payments have 3 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 M/s. Central Coalfields Limited been made before the due date of filing of the return and, therefore, the issue

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

24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these two Acts. Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that these payments have been made before the due date of filing of the return and, therefore, the issue is covered by the decision

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

24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these two Acts. Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that these payments have been made before the due date of filing of the return and, therefore, the issue is covered by the decision

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

24)(x) on the A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these two Acts. Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that these payments have been made before the due date of filing of the return and, therefore, the issue

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

24)(x) on the A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these two Acts. Ld. A.R. for the assessee submitted that these payments have been made before the due date of filing of the return and, therefore, the issue

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

x) For that the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax act, 1961, keeping in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ajay Prakash Verma in T.A.No. 38 of 2010. (xi) For that the appellant craves for leave

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)

x).Details of purchases of Rs. 65,33,41,701/-. (xi)Compensation paid to employees of Rs. 2,17,23,268/-. (xii).Proof of service tax of Rs. 6,89,59,617/- paid during the year. (xiii). “Advertisement” expense along with proof of TDS on the same. (xiv). “Other expenses” of Rs. 45,13,68,375/-. (xv).Amount debited

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

24. A plain reading of Section 92(1) of the Act very clearly brings out that income arising from on International Transaction is a condition precedent for application of Chapter X of the Act. This has already been so held by the order dated 29 November 2013 of this Court in Vodafone-Ill." "39. In tax jurisprudence, it is well

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

disallowance made on hearsay grounds is unjustified and illegal. 4. For that the interest U/s 234A and 234B should be charged on returned income and not on assessed income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. In any view the same could have been charged u/s 234A(3) and 234B(3) only. 5. For that other grounds

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

x) The AR has furnished detailed written submission along with the requisite documentary evidence which satisfactorily explains the contention of the appellant. Further, the AR .has also relied upon various judicial decisions in support of the contention of the appellant. (xi) As stated in para 2.1 above as per page no. 3 of the assessment order, the appellant had already

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

24. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. Learned Counsel has argued that the expenses