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

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That the applicant craves, leave to add, alter, delete and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 16. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has reiterated

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

Section 37(1) and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,36,75,000/- claimed as demurrage charges u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) That the applicant craves, leave to add, alter, delete and modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 16. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has reiterated

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

disallowance of the bogus purchases is to be made under Section 37(1) or Section 68 of the Act, as we have already deleted the addition itself in assessee's appeal, this ground no more survives. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 471/Ran/2024 stands allowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR vs. URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance has no adverse impact on revenue without appreciating the fact that the assessee company had claimed wrong expenses during the year under consideration in contravention to explanation 2 of section 37

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

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

ACIT CIRCLE-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

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

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

disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A(2b) of the Act on estimate basis being 20% of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. AR, then placed reliance on the decision made by Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of M/s Ravi Metallics Ltd Vs PCIT Sambalpur in ITA No. 34/CTK/2021 dated 30/05/2022, wherein it was held as under

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

U C I L,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

37,03,000/- is liable to be deleted in to-to.” ii. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

M/S. U C I L ,JADUGODA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleita Nos.384 & 385/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Uranium Corporation Of Acit, Circle -(3), India Ltd. Jamshedpur Vs Jadugoda Mines, Jadugoda, East Singhbhum-832102, Jharkhand. Pan: Aaacu 2207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P.K. Barman With Arijit Bhattacherjee, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Jamshedpur Vide Order Dated 07.10.2016 & 12.09.2017 Respectively For The A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For Each Of The Assessment Year Under Consideration: A.Y. 2013-14 “I. For That The Learned Lower Authorities Are Not Justified In Disallowing Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility U/S 37(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 As The Same Was Altogether In The Past Allowed By The Income Tax Department/Hon’Ble Itat & Consequently The Addition Of Rs. 2,23,90,022/- Is Liable To Be Deleted In To-To.”

37,03,000/- is liable to be deleted in to-to.” ii. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and engaged

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show cause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of Rs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

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)

2 | 6 Assessment Year : 2016-17 bench of Nagpur Bench in the case of Sukhharta Developers and Builders vs PCIT in ITA No.596 & 597/Nag/2016 dated 1.8.2018, wherein also, it has been held that the return filed within the time as specified in section 139(4) has sufficient compliance for provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was expounded

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

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

37,653.00 7,55,55,870.00 1,98,81,783.00 2014-15 7,89,22,334.00 5,13,02,422.00 2

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

37,653.00 7,55,55,870.00 1,98,81,783.00 2014-15 7,89,22,334.00 5,13,02,422.00 2

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