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

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

40A(3) disallowance of ₹ 1 lac is accepted as per our foregoing detailed discussion. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground seeks to delete 20% disallowance on various expenses in the nature of freight charges, job contract expenses and site expenses to the tune of Rs.12.51 lac made in lower proceedings. It transpires during the course of hearing that neither

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

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

40A(3) disallowance of ₹ 1 lac is accepted as per our foregoing detailed discussion. 6. The assessee’s second substantive ground seeks to delete 20% disallowance on various expenses in the nature of freight charges, job contract expenses and site expenses to the tune of Rs.12.51 lac made in lower proceedings. It transpires during the course of hearing that neither

M/S STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act raised by the revenue in the appeal is dismissed. 22. Ground no.3 is relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash. 23. For non reconciliation of cash transaction by the assessee the AO made this addition. During the survey operation u/s. 133A, the Managing Director of the assessee, in his statement

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

7. The ld. AR of the appellant finally, submitted that even in the consequential order passed in consequence of the impugned order under Section 263 of the Act, no adverse inferences were drawn by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 263 dated 28/03/2025 and no addition was made except some expenditure

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)

7. With regard to ground Nos.1 to 4, the assessee has agitated the addition of sundry creditors. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the entire material available on record along with the orders of authorities below as well as the case relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee, we find in this case that

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.)

section 40A(2)(b) will came into play subject to the condition that there is still no major difference in the conditions Page3 of both lenders. In this case no such comparison has been made. 3 A.Y 2015-16 3.5. As mentioned above in the submission, the appellant had contended before AO the basic differences between the situation

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]

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of 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

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]

7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that TDS was not deducted in violation of provision of 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

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