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)

D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC Delhi dated 21.4.2023 in Appeal No.CIT

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

d) of the Act and Chapter (VIA). Since 5% of Rs. 7,19,23,183/- comes to Rs. 35,96,159/-, it means the assessee had debited more than what was allowable under the said Section and therefore, the same should have been disallowed while passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 20/07/2023 for the A.Y. 2018-19. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances

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 ..

D E R Per S. S. Godara(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur’s order dated 16.08.2018 passed in case No.279/JSR/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file persued. 2. The assessee

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”).

d) holding it to be a fit case for reopening. Consequently, another notice under 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

ST PATRICKS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W3(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.70/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) St Patricks Educational Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Ranchi Society, Sisai Road, Gumla, Jharkhand-835207 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aakas 7872 B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

disallowed the claim of income not chargeable to tax u/s. 10 was denied. As the dispute is relates to the provision of section 10(23C)(iiiad) it would be relevant to go through the provision of the Act which reads as under: (23C) any income received by any person on behalf of— (i) the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. IT(SS)A No. 01/Ran/2025 is the appeal filed by the revenue and ITA No. 471/Ran/2024 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna both dated 09/10/2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The ld. CIT-DR has sought adjournment mentioning as follows

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

D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hazaribag [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 14/09/2020 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. In this appeal, the appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the learned officers below

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

4. That with respect to the 2nd issue i.e. hire charges paid to related persons U/s 40(A)(2b) and the vehicles/ machinery ownership details, we would like to submit as under:- a) That this issue was duly enquired and looked into at the time of original assessment which can be verified from the 142(1) notice, copy

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

d) Failure to Substantiate Notices The learned AO did not provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to explain the retirement benefits due to insufficient communication. Multiple notices under Sections 142(1) and 133(6) were not complied with because of disconnection from the employer's accounts division post-retirement. This communication gap should not be the sole reason for adverse

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

disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer out of interest and remuneration paid to the partners. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this ground reads as under:- “8.4. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have also perused the assessment order. Section 2(23) of the Act defines ‘firm’ as a firm shall have the meaning assigned

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. These appeals by the revenue are directed against the two separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 24/02/2023 and 23/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. These appeals of the revenue are having

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

D E R PER: BENCH 1. These appeals by the revenue are directed against the two separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 24/02/2023 and 23/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. These appeals of the revenue are having

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)

D E R PER: BENCH: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [in short, the ld. CIT (A)] dated 28/03/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 by raising following grounds of appeal: "1. For that, the learned. CIT(A) under the facts and circumstances

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

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 35(1)(i). It was a submission that the said R&D led to modifications so as to meet the local emission requirements and as per the agreement the said modifications also belonged to the AE being Cummins Incorporated. 14 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A specific query was raised

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. JUSCO LTD , JSR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

D in respect of profits of an undertaking referred to in Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that Form no. 10CCB is mandatory along with return or during the assessment proceedings but the assessee company has not ITA Nos. 8 & 9/Ran/2018 AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Ltd. submitted the Form