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

MECON LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance of such expenses incurred by the assessee prior to AY 2015-16. The amendment in section 37(1) of the Act is not a retrospective amendment.” 4

MECON LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance of such expenses incurred by the assessee prior to AY 2015-16. The amendment in section 37(1) of the Act is not a retrospective amendment.” 4

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

37 and started making disallowances and filing returns of income in all subsequent assessment year except in the A.Y. 2018- 19 wherein due to inadvertent error by the Accountant, disallowance was not made. Even in the subsequent years, the disallowance was made by the ITA 205/Ran/2023 DCIT Vs. Uranium Corporation of India assessee itself. The ld. AR further submitted that

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)

37,16,741/- as the same amounts to double addition. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidar Gopaji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust (supra) was in relation to the provisions of section

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT 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

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

CCL 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

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

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

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

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

In the result, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and runs a hospital. The assessee filed return of income on 28/09/2013 disclosing total income of ₹ 37,09,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on 22/07/2015 under Section 143(3) of the Income

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

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

disallowances, including ₹3 lakhs on trip expenses and ₹6,95,692 under section 37 of the Act. However, on examination of the assessment records, the Ld. PCIT Ranchi, observed that Sundry creditors amounting to ₹2,42,35,736 were shown in the audited balance sheet, but no enquiry or verification was made during assessment proceeding and similarly issue relating

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