JUSCO LTD ,JSR vs. DCIT CIR-2 , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form no. 10CCB. Accordingly the counsel of the assessee was asked to explain

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

section 10(23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount under section 14A of the Act. The AO also observed that

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then only 30% of the amount can be disallowed. 1.1 For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 26,478/- because the appellant had produced all the supporting vouchers of the diesel expenses. Making the addition

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

23,77,000,00/- being penal in nature and disallowed the same under Section 37 of the Act on the ground

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

23,77,000,00/- being penal in nature and disallowed the same under Section 37 of the Act on the ground

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

23. On other hand, The ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT-A. 24. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. We find from the assessment order that the assessee produced the vouchers and supporting evidence before the AO. All the expenses as claimed are fully verifiable and supported by third party vouchers

SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

section 23(3).” I find that the ld. Assessing Officer has been reasonable in making the disallowance. 7. Aggrieved the assessee

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

23 DTR 266/ 320 ITR 674/180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) wherein it was held that "where the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, raised a query which was ITA 27/Ran/2024 Devprabha Construction P Ltd. Vs PCIT answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but the same was not reflected in that assessment order

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

section 23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

section 23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot

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

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

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

section 23 (3)." The order has also ignored the fact that the sales promotion expenses so purported to be added back already includes Rs.127.60 lakh on account of warranty period expenses which has also been added back in the order. Therefore, it tantamounts to addition of the same amount twice and hence, addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot

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.”

disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- made by the assessee under the head of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Rs. 1,36,000/- under the head of donation made to the various parties by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

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.”

disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- made by the assessee under the head of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Rs. 1,36,000/- under the head of donation made to the various parties by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

23 (I) ITCL 145 (Guj- HC) : (2008) 217 CTR (Guj) 401, it was held that as per section 68, there should be cash credits of previous year. The section provides for a deeming fiction of treating the sum found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, being charged to income-tax as the income

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

23,183/- comes to Rs. 35,96,159/-, it means the assessee had debited more than what was allowable under the said Section and therefore, the same should have been disallowed

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

section 40(a)(ai) of the I.T.Act,1961 same is disallowable expenditure. Further as the details & ledger furnished by the assessee under the head Architect Drawing & MAP Approval are contradictory to each other, 10% of Rs.7,11,280/- (12,50,562 - 2011282 - 3,38,000) is disallowed & to total income of the assessee. Thus total of expenditure disallowed under this

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

23 /05/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 1.3.2017, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 read as under: “1. For that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made