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

PRAVIN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT , NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed by the assessee

PREM CHAND SINGH,CHATRA vs. PR.CIT, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.107/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd.......................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot No.6A, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jharkhand - 832109. [Pan: Aabcp0358E] Vs. Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi.……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.73,21,980/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.84,67,210/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Pointed Out That The Tax Audit Report Has Identified That The Assessee Paid Its Directors A Sum Of Rs.11,36,000/- As Bonus Or Commission Which Was Otherwise Payable As Profits Or Dividend & This Amount Was Covered By Section 36(1)(Ii) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Commission As Claimed By The Assessee.

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of commission as claimed 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

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

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

36,000/- M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without appreciating the facts and the law which is no more res-integra, as aforesaid. 6. For that other grounds, if any will be argued / taken up at the time of hearing. The revenue, on the other

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

36,000/- 6. As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without appreciating the facts and the law which is no more res-integra, as aforesaid. 7. For that other grounds, if any will be argued / taken up at the time of hearing. The revenue, on the other hand, in its appeal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Disallowance u/s 14A ₹ 2,12,51,000/- (ii) Prior period expenses ₹ 2,21,98,000/- (iii) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 2,80,62,000/- (iv) Sports grant and grants of school ₹ 4,73,83,000/- (v) Community development and environmental ₹ 8,73,15,000/- expenses (vi) Mines development expenses ₹ 1,63,23,000/- (vii) CMPDIL Expenses ₹ 18,36,39,000/- (viii

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

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

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

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

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

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

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

36(1 )(va) Explanation-2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’ 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about

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

36(1)(va)] of the appellant. 1.2 That CPC processed the same u/s 143(1) on 28.10.2021 at Rs. 25,73,500/- making adjustment of Rs. 21,82,243/-being late deposit of employee's contribution towards ESI and PF within the due date specified in the respective statute. 1.3 That after filing of rectification at CPC, vide Rectification Order

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]

ii. That the CPC has erred in denying deduction under section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee’s contribution if made before return filing date under 139(1). iii. That the order of CPC is a mistake apparent from record and in gross violation of the judgement

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]

ii. That the CPC has erred in denying deduction under section 43B which starts with a non-obstante clause and allows deduction of deposit of Employee’s contribution if made before return filing date under 139(1). iii. That the order of CPC is a mistake apparent from record and in gross violation of the judgement

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)

36,651/- was the opening balance for the year under consideration. By no means can the opening balance be considered as unexplained cash credit and addition can be made U/s 68 for the year under consideration. As such, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO to the tune of opening balance

DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36

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 ..

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Explanation—For the removal of doubts

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)

disallowances sustained by the ld CIT(A), vide our detailed reasoning in para 18 of this order: (i).Gift to others Rs. 15,253/- (ii).Entertainment Expenses Rs. 1,95,362/- (iii).Contribution for education and health care expenses Rs. 2,04,202/- (iv).Guest House expenses Rs.35,534/- (v).Community welfare expenses Rs. 13,318/- Hence, appeal