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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) in a search case on the basis of settlement of the dispute under section 201, shall be required to pay higher amount as applicable for search cases for settling dispute in respect of that TDS default under section 201. 4

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)

section 11(1) of the Act. It was P a g e 3 | 6 Assessment Year : 2016-17 the submission that when the Act specifically provide for filing of the return nu/s.139(1) of the Act, filing of return u/s.139(4) cannot be deemed to be sufficient compliance of the said provision. It was the submission that the carry forward

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 27. The appeal of assessee in ITA No. 68/Ran/2016 for the A.Y 2011-12 is allowed in part. 28. Now, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 69/Ran/2016 for the A.Y 2012-13. 29. Ground no. 1 is relating to confirmation of disallowance of Rs.49

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

4,08,000 under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had paid asset management fee of ₹14,38,359 to ICICI Prudential AMC. According to the AO, the said expenditure related to management of mutual fund investments, income from which was exempt under section 10(23). Accordingly, the AO disallowed

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 was made by the ITA 205/Ran/2023 DCIT Vs. Uranium Corporation of India assessee itself. The ld. AR further submitted that the penalty should not be imposed under Section 270A of the Act for making inadvertent error which was subsequently rectified. The ld. AR in his submission submitted that even the show cause notice issued under Section 270A

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 ..

disallowance of Rs.81,000/-. 4. Lastly comes section 234B and 234C interest disallowance of Rs.3,31,596/- and Rs.3,97,096/-; respectively

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’).

section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:- (a) The total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (iv) disallowance of expenditure (or increase in income) indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return.” 4

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

4 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran Power Ltd. 35,77,52,226/- as bogus purchases. It was a submission that the Assessing Officer had also made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section

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

Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable in this case. Even if the appellant was liable to deduct TDS then only 30% of the amount can be disallowed. 1.1 For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 26,478/- because the appellant had produced all the supporting vouchers of the diesel expenses. Making the addition

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 P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

section 194C of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, he disallowed both the items. 11. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities are not justified in making the above disallowance because on purchase of material, no TDS was required to be deducted by the assessee. Similarly it was submitted

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 of the Act. 4. The assessee further submitted that 'under-loading charges' have already been allowed by the ITAT, Nagpur Bench in order in ITA No. 289 & 290/Nag/2006 dated 30/06/2009 for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 and order in ITA No. 475/Nag/2007 dated 10/08/2009 for the A.Y. 2004-05 in the case of the sister concern

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 of the Act. 4. The assessee further submitted that 'under-loading charges' have already been allowed by the ITAT, Nagpur Bench in order in ITA No. 289 & 290/Nag/2006 dated 30/06/2009 for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 and order in ITA No. 475/Nag/2007 dated 10/08/2009 for the A.Y. 2004-05 in the case of the sister concern

M/S ALAM HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT LTD,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistic- al purposes only

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 80-IB(11C) was disallowed. 4. The learned Sr. DR for the revenue also confirmed the position as taken

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

4. The Assessing Officer observed that said amount could be allowed as deduction in absence of TDS only if the assessee had furnished Form 15J to the department within time. Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act calls for disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

4. The ld. AO further disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal by the assessee is partly allowed as well as cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

4. The ld. AO further disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

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