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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee M/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed by the Assessing Officer and following additions/disallowances were made: DCIT Vs M/s CCL & 1 Anr. Sl. Head of addition/disallowance Amount No. (i) Disallowance u/s 14A ₹ 1,64,80,500/- (ii) Prior period expenses ₹ 91,73,000/- (iii) Land & Crop Compensation

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

disallowed by the Assessing Officer, establishing mens rea in assessee's approach. 4. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee is aided by a battery of CAs and advocates, still it deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Other grounds, if any, will be raised at the time of hearing." 2. The appeal of the assessee, bearing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the penalty to its minimum, while the AO was fully justified in imposing penalty @ 150% of tax sought to be evaded. 2. The Assessee has given inaccurate particulars of allowable expenses and the same has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in his order relating to the Assessment order

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

43,617/- made on account of entertainment expenses and hospitality expenses confirmed by the CIT-A is deleted. 18. Ground no. 3 is relating to confirmation of addition of Rs. ,36,768/- on account of festival celebration, gift and presents and general expenses. 19. On perusal of P & L account the AO found that the assessee debited an amount

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

43,825/- 4. Interest u/s 234C wrongly imposed (detail point no.9) Rs.8,13,036/- 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee under consideration is a Contractor and owns a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s Prakash Construction Company.In this case, the original assessment was made by the Assessing Officer

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

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.130/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Finance Directorate, Ground Floor, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005. [Pan: Aaacb7934M] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhary, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Saumyajit Das Gupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 26, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.09.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non- deduction of TDS on interest expenditure amounting to Rs.132,20,00,000/-. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) dated 20.03.2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer raising TDS demand of Rs.13,22,00,000/- and interest of Rs.6,21,34,000/- totalling

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD NO.1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

disallowance and estimated the profit arbitrarily @ 8% of the gross receipts. Under these circumstances I tend to agree with the submission of the appellant and therefore by squarely relying on the decisions cited by the appellant (supra), the AO is directed to compute profit @ 8% of Gross receipts after allowing depreciation. In other words the net addition sustained is Rs.26

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 ..

1) of the Act has not been properly examined by the AO. He however went on to uphold the disallowance by applying the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ii) of the Act. The provisions of Sec.40(a)(ii) of the Act reads thus: “Amounts not deductible. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee’s submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit of employees contribution to EPF /ESI fund since the assessee has deposited

JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee’s submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit of employees contribution to EPF /ESI fund since the assessee has deposited

TAYO ROLLS ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.244 & 245/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2008-09)

1 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Expenditure on scientific research of Rs. 11,07,899/- 8. Brief facts qua the issue are that the Assessing Officer disallowed the scientific research expenditure incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view the assessee’s expenditure does not fit in the definition of the terms of scientific

TAYO ROLLS LTD ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.244 & 245/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2008-09)

1 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Expenditure on scientific research of Rs. 11,07,899/- 8. Brief facts qua the issue are that the Assessing Officer disallowed the scientific research expenditure incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view the assessee’s expenditure does not fit in the definition of the terms of scientific

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) . 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals and cross objections are common and identical; therefore, these appeals and cross objections have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well