MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA,SAHARPURA, SINDRI, JHARKHAND-828122 vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we have no other option but to decide the appeal on merits with the assistance of the ld. DR. 3. At the outset, ld. DR submitted that the grounds of appeal relating to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution

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

28,86,14,000", "total_contract_payment_for_ay_2012_13": "42,03,00,000"}, "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["10(34)", "14A", "32(2)", "40(a)(ia)", "46A"], "issues": "Disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR vs. URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance has no adverse impact on revenue whereas the fact was that the assessee company had claimed wrong expenses, thereby misrepresented the facts and figure, liable for impositionof penaltyu/s270AoftheI.T.Act1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 270A of the I.T.Act; 1961 without considering the provisions of section 270A(2

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

2,29,65,337/-\nTotal value: Rs. 7,75,99,579/-\nShort fall after reconciliation due to non-availability of records in case of Bharat Singh: - Rs. 15,46,00,421\n(23,22,00,000-7,75,99,579).\nProfit & Loss a/c and Balance Sheet of L B Singh, K N Singh and Bharat Singh

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

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

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

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

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

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

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

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowing the deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the long term capital gain so determined in the assessment order and misinterpreted the provision of income tax act as stipulated in section 54. (x) For that the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income

M/S KRISH CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम M/S Krish Construction, Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ranchi / V/S. Kte 4, Krish Tower, Singh More, Hatia, Ranchi-834003. Pan No.Aakfk6755G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

2 the course of assessment framed on 22.12.2017 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion reading as under: “Ground No.(iii): - 5.1 The relevant portion of the Assessment Order is reproduced hereunder: “4.2 Also proportionate bank interest debited in the profit and loss account is disallowed to the extent of suspicious investment. The same is discussed below

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

disallowed under any circumstances. 2. As required in para 2 of your notice, we would like to bring to your notice that the assessee has claimed the following expenses under the head “Mines Development” Expense for a total of Rs. 2,31,97,746.00 during the relevant previous year 2011-12: Expenses Amount in (Rs.) Overburden Removal

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

28,00,000\n58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation over the period of lease and in some years

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

28-10-2021 passed U/s 143(3) by Centralized Processing Center of the Act and the Rectification Order completed at an Income of Rs 25,51,090/-vide order dated 17-10-2022 passed U/s 154 by Centralized Processing Center of the Act. 1.1 That the first dispute in this case is with regard to addition

TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

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

disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.s 8D stands upheld. 17. In regard to computation u/s.115JB of the Act, it is noticed that this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investment (P Ld.,82 taxmann.com P a g e 17 | 31 Assessment Year

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

28, 2022 O R D E R Per Bench:- (ORAL) The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi of even dated 19.08.2021 passed for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee has filed an application

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

28, 2022 O R D E R Per Bench:- (ORAL) The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi of even dated 19.08.2021 passed for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee has filed an application

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI vs. SHRI KAMAL BHUSHAN, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.(Ss)A. No. 1/Ran/2021 I.T.(Ss)A. No. 5/Ran/2019

section 68 which has been cross checked with the details submitted in the paper book and as such. It is also observed that the assessing officer at time of assessment has failed to look into the submissions of the appellant and for that matter give any categorical finding for making the addition as from the order of assessment