OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.12.2014.” 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire dated 27.01.2016 was asked to furnish/give details of financial activities carried on during the relevant financial year; details of Bank accounts; allowability Security deposit debited

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

3. That CPC while processing the ITR U/s 143(1) disallowed the deduction claimed U/s 801B for Rs. 27,45,349/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs. 38,55,101/- in AY 2019-20. That as stated above, the sole ground for disallowance was that the ITR has been filed beyond the due date U/s 139(1). 4. That

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

3. That CPC while processing the ITR U/s 143(1) disallowed the deduction claimed U/s 801B for Rs. 27,45,349/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs. 38,55,101/- in AY 2019-20. That as stated above, the sole ground for disallowance was that the ITR has been filed beyond the due date U/s 139(1). 4. That

JHARKHAND URJAA SANCHARAN NIGAM LTD.,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(4),, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 80 of Income tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 21.11.2019? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law to hold that the assessee was correct in disallowing

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.)

section 40A(3) of the Act. For that, we rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh 191 ITR 667(SC). We note that where books of accounts are rejected and profit has been estimated, it is deemed that all the expenses and disallowances

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

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

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

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

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

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

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

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

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

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”).

section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010, which was accepted as returned income. However, while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make further additions and assessed ₹4,75,23,253 as interest income from other sources, and ₹3,42,60,244 by disallowing

M/S STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

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

3) of the Act. The AO also found that the assessee on its own disallowed 20% of Rs.16,07,007/- and added the same to its return of income. The AO considering the submissions of assessee added an amount of Rs.10,54,377/- i.e 20% of balance amount of Rs.52,71,885/- for violation of provisions of section

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

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

3 M/s Eklavya Estate P Ltd. Vs DCIT states that no penalty should be imposed for alleged under reporting of income if the same is determined on estimate basis. For ready reference, the extract of the provision reads as below:- Section 270A (6). The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely

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

3,00,000/- especially in view of the fact that there was no agreement to make any payment under Section 194C and therefore provision of 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

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)

disallowance was made only by applying the provisions of section 40A(3). I also find that such sundry creditors for supply

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

section 143(3), determining the total income at ₹9,95,690, after making disallowances, including ₹3 lakhs on trip expenses

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

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

HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed is uncalled for. 2. For that the revenue authorities were not justified in alleging that the assessee For that the revenue authorities were not justified in alleging that the assessee For that the revenue authorities were not justified in alleging that the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 13(1) and 13(3

M/S ALAM HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT LTD,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistic- al purposes only

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

3) dated 26/12/2016 and another under Section 147 dated 31/01/2025 on the same issue of addition where the claim of deduction under Section 80-IB(11C) was disallowed