DCIT,CIRCLE-1RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/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

disallowance of expenses is as under :- Sl. Head Amount Issue involved 1 Lease Rent paid for 133,78,37,000/- Whether revenue the acquisition of expenditure or capital Forest land expenditure. 2 Prior period 8,99,66,000/- Whether ascertained & expenses crystalized during the year. 3 Land & Crop 89,82,07,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital

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

Disallowance u/s 14A ₹ 2,12,51,000/- (ii) Prior period expenses ₹ 2,21,98,000/- (iii) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 2,80,62,000/- (iv) Sports grant and grants of school ₹ 4,73,83,000/- (v) Community development and environmental ₹ 8,73,15,000/- expenses (vi) Mines development expenses ₹ 1,63,23,000/- (vii) CMPDIL Expenses ₹ 18,36,39,000/- (viii

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

JAMSHEDPUR UTILITIES AND SERVICES COMPANY LTD,JSR vs. ACIT 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

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

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

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

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

23,764/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,87,239/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20), which were added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these

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

23,77,00,000/- 3. Under-loading charges: The Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 for the assessment year under consideration, found that the BCCL, the assessee, has claimed expenses in its Profit & Loss Account under the head "under-loading charges” amounting to ₹121,08,1,000/-. Accordingly, notice under Section

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

23,77,00,000/- 3. Under-loading charges: The Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 for the assessment year under consideration, found that the BCCL, the assessee, has claimed expenses in its Profit & Loss Account under the head "under-loading charges” amounting to ₹121,08,1,000/-. Accordingly, notice under Section

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

23,13,95,671.00 6,57,68,608.00 2017-18 6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

23,13,95,671.00 6,57,68,608.00 2017-18 6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce

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

23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amount under section 14A of the Act. The AO also observed that tax was not deducted at source on the said payment. The Assessing Officer further made the following additions: 1

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

23,764/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,87,239/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20), which were added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on the A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited

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

23,764/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,87,239/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20), which were added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on the A.Ys. 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Pankaj Agarwal, Jamshedpur ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited

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

23,764/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,87,239/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20), which were added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these

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

23,764/- (for Assessment Year 2018-19) and Rs.3,87,239/- (for Assessment Year 2019-20), which were added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on the ground that employees’ contributions towards PF & ESI were not deposited by the assessee within the due date provided under these