DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, establishing mens rea in assessee's approach. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee is aided by a battery of CAs and advocates, still it deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Other grounds, if any, will be raised at the time of hearing." 2. The appeal of the assessee, bearing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue\nis dismissed

1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the penalty to its minimum, while the\nAO was fully justified in imposing penalty @ 150% of tax sought to be evaded.\n2. The Assessee has given inaccurate particulars of allowable expenses and the\nsame has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order relating to the\nAssessment order

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

35,77,52,226/- but had held that the same was liable to be considered as disallowable under Section 37(1

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

35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n1 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n14,79,92,000\n2,21,98,000\n91,73,000\n12 Prior period

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

35,00,000 1,08,63,00,000 1,37,01,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n16 CSR Expenses\n15,52,00,000\n13,61,00,000\n4,37,00,000\nTotal Rs. 1,28,58,12,000 1,90,26,25,826 1

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

35,96,159/-, it means the assessee had debited more than what was allowable under the said Section and therefore, the same should have been 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

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

35,00,000 1,08,63,00,000 1,37,01,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n16 CSR Expenses\n15,52,00,000\n13,61,00,000\n4,37,00,000\nTotal Rs. 1,28,58,12,000 1,90,26,25,826 1

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , 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

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

35,00,000 1,08,63,00,000 1,37,01,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n16 CSR Expenses\n15,52,00,000\n13,61,00,000\n4,37,00,000\nTotal Rs. 1,28,58,12,000 1,90,26,25,826 1

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

SHIV PRASAD RAM,BOKARO vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BOKARO

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Shiv Prasad Ram, I.T.O., Near Petrol Pump, Sector-9/A, Basanti Ward 3(1), Vs. More, Sector-Ix, S.O. Alkusa, Bokaro. Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aqepr 2909 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A (Section 80C). The Appellant claimed a deduction of ₹1,50,000, which is allowable under the law. However, only ₹51,547 was allowed based on the employer's Form 16. Fixed deposits (FDs) made for a tenure of 5 years or more with a scheduled bank were eligible for deduction under Section

ST PATRICKS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W3(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

disallowed the claim of income not chargeable to tax u/s. 10 was denied. As the dispute is relates to the provision of section 10(23C)(iiiad) it would be relevant to go through the provision of the Act which reads as under: (23C) any income received by any person on behalf of— (i) the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nu/s 14A\nPA\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\n1 Prior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n14,79,92,000\n2,21,98,000\n91,73,000\n12 Prior period

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 35(1)(i). It was a submission that the said R&D led to modifications so as to meet the local emission requirements and as per the agreement the said modifications also belonged to the AE being Cummins Incorporated. 14 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A specific query was raised

M/S. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT/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

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held this