S. K. TIMBERS,BURMAMINES vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by 2 AY: 2017-18 S. K. Timber the recent verdict

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]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.57,28,360/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

INDUTECH SOLUTIONS AND MANUFACTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. 2 AY: 2018-19 Indutech Solutions and Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

ALOK KUMAR KHAITAN,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

M/S VED TEXTILES & APPARELS,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

NEPAL CHANDRA DEY,RANCHI vs. ASSITANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

iv) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 9. As per the prescribed form 3CD, the following information is required to be given by the auditor: I.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the penalty to its minimum, while the AO was fully justified in imposing penalty @ 150% of tax sought to be evaded. 2. The Assessee has given inaccurate particulars of allowable expenses and the same has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order relating to the Assessment order

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

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, ld. Sr. D.R. contended that since it is only an early hearing application, he is not possessing the files

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

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, ld. Sr. D.R. contended that since it is only an early hearing application, he is not possessing the files

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

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

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]

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 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Jharkhand High Court. iv

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]

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 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Jharkhand High Court. iv

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

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