M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 40A(3) for Rs.78,45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

disallowance was made only by applying the provisions of section 40A(3). I also find that such sundry creditors for supply

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

3) read with section 263 dated 28/03/2025 and no addition was made except some expenditure was disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

section 194C does not attract in this case and therefore consequential disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is also not attracted. And CO No.02/Ran/2018 Therefore disallowance made for Rs. 2,15,01,768/- is not proper and is hereby deleted. Further the CIT(A) in respect of third ground, has granted relief of Rs.71,128/- out of the total addition

ACIT CIR-2(1), JSR vs. KESHAVJI CHHAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD , JSR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

disallowed by AO on the ground of excess payment of interest over 12% of Rs.35,98,695/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act 1961 given on the unsecured loans by the assessee? As per Section 40(b)(iv) payment of interest to partners is restricted to 12% which was forming basis of fair market rate”. 4. Brief facts

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed certain expenditure on ad hoc basis out of the total expenses on account of transport and freight. The Assessing Officer further made ad hoc disallowances out of certain expenditure on diesel and petrol, fuel and gas etc. totalling to Rs.1,36,234/- and assessed the total income by the assessee

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance of Rs. 9,98,000/- by ld. CIT(A) so made by the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') on account of cash deposits. 3. The facts in brief are that the survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') was conducted on the assessee on 11.11.2014 and during the course of survey

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]

section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the enhancement of the disallowance. 1.1 For that the TDS was duly made from the bills at the time of making the payment, as such, it is not correct to say that no TDS was deducted. Disallowance

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]

section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance made is unjustified and illegal. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the enhancement of the disallowance. 1.1 For that the TDS was duly made from the bills at the time of making the payment, as such, it is not correct to say that no TDS was deducted. Disallowance