JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance made in assessment proceedings and even if not contested by assessee for any reason, does not attract penalty automatically. In the instant case, AO merely rejected the claim of deductions of depreciation and interest made by assessee on the premise of change in taxability head but without finding any incorrect or erroneous or false information supplied by the assessee

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

disallowance is to be made. He drew our attention to page no. 5 of the impugned order, where details of payments are available. 4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the order of ld. Commissioner. 5. The assessee has filed an application for out of turn hearing. Since it is an appeal against the order

THE HAZARIBAGH CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,HAZARIBAG vs. ACIT, HAZARIBAG

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

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

section 11(1) of the Act. It was P a g e 3 | 6 Assessment Year : 2016-17 the submission that when the Act specifically provide for filing of the return nu/s.139(1) of the Act, filing of return u/s.139(4) cannot be deemed to be sufficient compliance of the said provision. It was the submission that the carry forward

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees)\nAssessee-company was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Sauravh Tiwary Acit, Circle-3, Jamshedpur / Banglow No.9999/287, Vijaya V/S. Garden, 5Th Phase, Baridih, Jamshedpur-831017. Pan No.Agfpt6115J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

section 234B and 234C interest disallowance of Rs.3,31,596/- and Rs.3,97,096/-; respectively. The Revenue’s case in tune with the lower authorities’ discussion is that such interest expenses are not allowable for business expenses. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Bihar Foundry and Casting Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.112/Ran/2015 dated 16.09.2016 has declined Revenue

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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

31. Where assessee settles TDS liability as deductor of TDS under Vivad se Vishwas (i.e against order u/s 201), when will he get consequential relief of expenditure allowance under proviso to section 40(a)(i)/(ia)? Answer: In such cases, the deductor shall be entitled to get consequential relief of allowable expenditure under proviso to section

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

31 of 2014; (iii) CIT –vs.- M/s. Coal India Ltd. in ITA 12 of 2015 and (iv) M/s. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. –vs.- CIT in ITA No. 110 of 2011. This aspect has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Lumino Industries Ltd. –vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 231 & 365/KOL/2021). 2. On the other hand

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

31 of 2014; (iii) CIT –vs.- M/s. Coal India Ltd. in ITA 12 of 2015 and (iv) M/s. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. –vs.- CIT in ITA No. 110 of 2011. This aspect has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Lumino Industries Ltd. –vs.- ACIT (ITA No. 231 & 365/KOL/2021). 2. On the other hand

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

disallowance out of EPF and ESI payments, which were paid by the assessee within due date of filing of the return, but not within the due date of the limitation prescribed under those Acts. Ld. Counsel for the Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Exman Security Services Pvt. Limited assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered

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

disallowance out of EPF and ESI payments, which were paid by the assessee within due date of filing of the return, but not within the due date of the limitation prescribed under those Acts. Ld. Counsel for the Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Exman Security Services Pvt. Limited assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered

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)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

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

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

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees)\nAssessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act and books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected by the assessing officer. We have already taken a view in para No.18 of this order that ad hoc disallowance M/s Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd. ITA Nos. 125 to 127/Ran/2015 ITA Nos. 131, 136 & 137/Ran/2015 C.O. No. 18 to 20/Ran/2017 (Arising