BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4:That the order passed by the Ld. AO has erred\nin law by making an addition of INR 3,00,000/- with respect to\ncommission expenses incurred by the assessee.\n1.5.1 That the Ld. AO disallowed commission payment of Rs 3,00,000\nobserving that same is doubtful and do not relate to the business of\nthe assesee.\n1.5.2It

JHARKHAND URJAA SANCHARAN NIGAM LTD.,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 1(4),, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallow the claim of carried forward of loss at Rs.1,22,04, 26,668/- in terms of section 139(3) read with section 80 of Income tax Act, 1961 which the assessee had claimed in a returns of income filed u/s 139(4

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010, which was accepted as returned income. However, while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make further additions and assessed ₹4,75,23,253 as interest income from other sources, and ₹3,42,60,244 by disallowing

KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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 Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), where the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000. 4

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

4) That anyhow as the case may be, it is a settled principle of law that penalty should not be imposed against the addition which has been made on estimate basis. The lower authorities have failed to consider this contention of the assessee. The sub section 6 to section 270A clearly 3 M/s Eklavya Estate P Ltd. Vs DCIT states

M/S. AMAN ENTERPRISES,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Aman Enterprises, D.C.I.T., 22, Park Street, Near Doranda College, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaifa 9921 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowances of expenses was made. 2. That subsequently proceeding U/s 148 was initiated vide notice dated 18/08/2017 i.e. beyond 4 years and an order U/s 147 rws 144 was passed on 26/11/2018. 3. That the legal issue which we intend to challenge is that this impugned proceedings has been initiated beyond a period of 4 years wherein an original assessment

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

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)

3) dated 26/12/2016 and another under Section 147 dated 31/01/2025 on the same issue of addition where the claim of deduction under Section 80-IB(11C) was disallowed. 4

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

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

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 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

3 of 2010, ITA No. 4 of 2010. ITA No. 73 of 2010, ITA No. 85 of 2010 and ITA no. 14 of 2015 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble ITA T. While dismissing the appeal, in para 4 of its judgment the Hon'ble High Court has observed

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

3 of 2010, ITA No. 4 of 2010. ITA No. 73 of 2010, ITA No. 85 of 2010 and ITA no. 14 of 2015 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble ITA T. While dismissing the appeal, in para 4 of its judgment the Hon'ble High Court has observed

HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Section 13(1) and 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is disallowed. The notices U/s 133(6) were

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

M/S PINNACLE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. PCIT, RANCHI, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, 5, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI-834004

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Pinnacle Capital Solutions (P) Ltd., P.C.I.T., Virdi Niwas, Jamshedpur, East Ranchi. Vs. Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. Pan No. Aaacp 9726 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to do so, the said omission resulted in short computation of income of Rs. 2,00,93,041 and consequential tax effect of Rs. 65,42,767/-. 4

JAISWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

section 69 and disallowance of depreciation. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance on various dates of hearing. 4

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 the amount under section