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

section 263 dated 28/03/2025 and no addition was made except some expenditure was disallowed under Section 37 read with section

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax, but by going into the merits and making an addition, and not by way of a remand, recording that there was failure to investigate. There is a distinction between the failure or absence of investigation and a wrong decision/conclusion. A wrong decision/conclusion

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

disallowance made, no tax is payable on the same and that is why the same is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thus in the present case, the twin conditions as required under Section 263

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

section 263 is that the ld. Assessing Officer failed to disallow an amount of Rs.8.51 crore, which represents employees contribution

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) revising the original assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a company engaged in the transport and infrastructure business. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section

AADHAR RICE MILL PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.294/Ran/2018 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.201/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) M/S Aadhar Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi C/O Sri Vinay Kumar Jalan, M/S O.P.Jalan & Associates Consultants Llp, 48 Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazaar, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Pin-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahca 6463 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R The Assessee Has Filed Above Two Appeals Out Of Which Ita No.294/Ran/2018 Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In First Appeal No.Cit(A), Ranchi/10058/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, Arising Out Of Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016, Whereas Ita No.201/Ran/2019 Has Been Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Ranchi, Dated 31.03.2019 U/S.263 Of The Act.

Section 263 of the Act. 11. Secondly, from the observations recorded by Their Lodships in the judgment of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill (supra) from paras 14 to 20, I observe that the Hon‟ble High Court has clearly held that there is no reason to hold that the activity

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

disallowed while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to do so, the said omission resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 2,00,93,041 and consequential tax effect of Rs. 65,42,767/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. PCIT under Section 263

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

263 of the Act vide its order dated 23/03/2018. During the consequential assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 3.00 lacs to one Sri Sudhanshu Ojha but no TDS under Section 194C of the Act was deducted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed

BKB TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallow the PF and ESIC in respect of the delayed payment. It was the submission that admittedly, as on today, there is a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd., vs CIT (2022), 448 ITR 518, It was the submission that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Checkmate

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance in the instant lis seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing section

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

263 observed. that the appellant purchased fire works, the business in which the appellant deals in, from Sri Kaliswari Fire Works, Sri Kaliswari Fire' Works (P) Ltd. and M/s. Graham Cap Works and made payments on various dates violating the provision of section 40A(3) as each payment exceeded in a day Rs.20,000/-. The total of such payment

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 wherein the Assessing Officer took the stand that Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was not existent at the given address and Rajshila Nirman Pvt. Ltd. did not have the machinery/excavation machinery to carryout the development of mining area. It was a submission that consequently the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

263 revisional direction issued to the Assessing Officer for framing the afresh assessment year. He has failed to appreciate the fact that the instant second round of litigation is on merits. 3. It further emerges from the case file that the assessee has not paid any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in the course of a day in case

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]

263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance

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]

263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance

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

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

disallowing sundry creditors u/s 41(1) of the Act. The issue raised by the appellant is, whether the credit purchases can be added under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when all the purchases have been accepted as genuine and all the creditors stood in the books of accounts of the appellant. As regards applicability of provisions

THE SINGHBHUM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.177/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Singhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank, Chaibasa...……….……Appellant Represented By Jsbs, Madhubazar, Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aaajt2036K] Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi……….............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Sr. Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.06.2023 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’).

disallowing claim of deduction of Rs.5,15,43,257/- u/s 80P of the Act. On examination of assessment record, it was observed that the assessee made provision of Rs.11,46,24,925/- for bad & doubtful debts against non-performing assets in P & L A/c. As per provision of section 36(1)(vi) of the Act, the assessee is eligible