ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CORE MINERALS , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathanshri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahay & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19

1 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-19 3. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that two issues are involved, first issue is in regard to deletion of addition of Rs.25,66,72,064/- in respect of devaluation in the closing stock allowed as deduction. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment had disallowed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR vs. MAHENDRA GOPE,, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

41(1)", "Section 145", "Section 2(24)"], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of unverifiable expenses was correctly estimated and whether the CIT(A) considered

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

1) provides that the known liabilities should be provided\nfor in the accounts, even though the amount could not be ascertained\nwith certainty. Further, the assessee also placed reliance on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth\nMovers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had\nheld that the definite

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-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

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]

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head contractual expenses. Ld. AO had made disallowance of Rs. 7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds 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]

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 22,53,48,000/- by disallowance under the head contractual expenses. Ld. AO had made disallowance of Rs. 7,41,75,000/-. Ld. CIT(A) enhanced disallowance made by ld. AO to Rs. 22,53,48,000/- on the grounds that

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

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

41,67,000/- and\nclaimed the same as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. Ld. AO on perusal\nof the profit and loss accounts and books of accounts came to the\nconclusion that provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, 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

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

1) provides that the known liabilities should be provided\nfor in the accounts, even though the amount could not be ascertained\nwith certainty. Further, the assessee also placed reliance on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth\nMovers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had\nheld that the definite

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) ..

41 /JP/2025 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, order dated 05.05.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: ‘”11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no. 1 the assessee challenges the impugned order on its legality and vide ground no. 2 the assessee challenges the impugned order

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

1) provides that the known liabilities should be provided\nfor in the accounts, even though the amount could not be ascertained\nwith certainty. Further, the assessee also placed reliance on the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth\nMovers Vs. CIT (245 ITR 428), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had\nheld that the definite

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, 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

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

41-60) A perusal of the consequential order clearly shows that the additions which have been proposed by the Pr. CIT, more so the issues that have been raised by the Pr. CIT have not resulted into any of the addition in the assessment. Obviously, if the Pr. CIT had done cursory verification of the details that has been produced

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS 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

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-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

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been made by Assessing Officer, in assessment proceedings, the same amount could not be considered as an amount covered by provisions of section 194A so as to raise TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred