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

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

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

220 Material, Spares and 73 Consumables Testing Expenses 798 Total 1,091 3 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT 9.9 In the automobile market, existing engine technology always needs adaptation, testing and indigenization to fruitfully deploy for specific end needs of customers. Localization is the need of the hour since imported technology always proves to be expensive and the only strategic recourse

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

220 Mumbai Tribunal Asst. Director of Exemption Vs Madras Craft Foundation(2014) 46 Taxman corn 2b2 Chennai Tribunal It is therefore must humbly and respectfully prayed that addition made by learned A.O. may kindly be deleted and returned income be accepted." 5. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer submitted her remand

M/S BIJAY KUMAR SANTOSH KUMAR ,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

disallowance made on account of claiming excess depreciation, ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation @60% on UPS being part of computer system, however, the authorities below were of the view that depreciation @15% can only be allowed, which is not justified. To support his claim, ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

220,71,60,000/- 2 M/s CCL Vs DCIT As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without appreciating the facts and the law which is no more res-integra, as aforesaid. 6. For that without prejudice to aforesaid grounds, Ld. AO was not justified in imposing higher penalty @ 150%, on the alleged

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), JAMSHEDPUR vs. JYOTI PUNJ EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

220 of 2005-2006 dated 30.01.2006. The society’s old registration number was 740/95-96 registered by IG Registration, Bihar, Patna. The society is also registered u/s. 12AA of the I.T Act, 1961 vide order No. CIT/JSR/Tech/VIII- 44/02-03/6070-73 dated 31.03.2003 of the CIT, Jamshedpur. It is a registered society engaged in the activities of imparting educations and running educational institutions