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’).

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing despite notice. However, later an written submissions have been received by email from Shri Ankit Jain, CA, Ld. AR of the assessee.. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here

KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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 Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The case was originally selected for scrutiny on the issue of share capital and share premium received during the year. The Assessing Officer completed

JAISWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016–17 declaring income as per return. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated and the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read

INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST,DHANBAD vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEAL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Indian Education Trust, Exemption Ward, Shishu Vihar, Bastacolla, Dhansar, Dhanbad. Vs. Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaati 4414 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

250 is perverse, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice as adequate opportunities were not provided for presenting the case. 3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,24,32,966 without considering: The appellant's audited financial statements, including the income and expenditure account. The nature of the appellant

RAJESH JALAN,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of furniture trading under the proprietorship concerns M/s R.K. Traders and M/s New Furniture Bazar. The assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 declaring

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

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 original return of income for the assessment year 2017–18 declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010. The said return was treated as invalid by the Department on the ground that it could

SHAMBU DAYAL MODI,MODI PLASTIC UDYOG vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.168/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shambu Dayal Modi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Modi Plastic Udyog, Mini Shed No.-31, 32, Phase-Iii, Adityapur Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Seraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand-832109, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 832109. [Pan: Akxpm9308G] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 19.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹5,45,350/-. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Received Information That The Assessee Was Allegedly Involved In Gst Evasion By Facilitating Purchases Without Actual Movement Of Goods. As Per The Information Received From The Gst Database, The Assessee Had Shown Purchases Amounting To ₹13,12,816/- From M/S. Tumbqun Plastic During The Year Under Consideration. Based On This Information, The Assessing Officer Initiated Proceedings Under Section 148A(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018–19 declaring a total income of ₹5,45,350/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that the assessee was allegedly involved in GST evasion

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. DUKHHARAN MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017–18 declaring nil income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections

PRAVIN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.73,21,980/-. The case of the was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

PREM CHAND SINGH,CHATRA vs. PR.CIT, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.73,21,980/-. The case of the was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

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

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

disallowed and added back to our total income. CO No.03/Ran/19 As per Closure Order U/s 250 It was stated that the amount of ₹4,35,52,240 was unpaid royalty and the payment was not in terms of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Hence, it was added back to the income of the AY 2013-14. Ground

M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.03/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Arising Out Of Ita No.38/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

disallowed and added back to our total income. CO No.03/Ran/19 As per Closure Order U/s 250 It was stated that the amount of ₹4,35,52,240 was unpaid royalty and the payment was not in terms of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Hence, it was added back to the income of the AY 2013-14. Ground

M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., ,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

6. For that Ld. C.I.T.(A) was not justified for not considering the mistake of double showing of interest income of Rs.7,05,25,624/-, which impact excess payment of taxes of Rs.1,06,95,610/-. The mistake was apparent on record and must be deleted. 7. For that interest u/s.234A and 234B is to be charged on returned income

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

6. For that Ld. C.I.T.(A) was not justified for not considering the mistake of double showing of interest income of Rs.7,05,25,624/-, which impact excess payment of taxes of Rs.1,06,95,610/-. The mistake was apparent on record and must be deleted. 7. For that interest u/s.234A and 234B is to be charged on returned income

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

6. For that as such the view taken by Ld. AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. For that any other ground(s) if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, in this case, return of income was filed

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, Revenue's appeal stands allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.275/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shah Brothers, Chaibasa……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. [Pan: Aazfs7498F] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.11.2023 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’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,04,03,980/- For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31.102.108 Accepting The Said Returned Income. Subsequently, Based On Information Received From Dcit, Cc-1(3), Mumbai, It Was Alleged That The Said Assessee Had Claimed A Bogus Contract Expenses Of Rs.2,69,14,526/- In Lieu Of The Bogus Work Order To M/S Pandhe Infracons Pvt. Ltd. During The F.Y 2015-16 Without Any Actual Work Had Been Performed. The Revenue Relied Upon Search Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Conducted On M/S

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.14,04,03,980/- for assessment year 2016-17. The assessment of the assessee was completed

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD NO.1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in I.T.A. No.: 45/RAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Himanchal Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 20.02.2020 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/154/263 of the Act dated