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

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

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]

disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

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]

disallowed the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of Rs. 944,77,29,240/- for the AYs 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1999- 2000 by recalculating the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation / loss of the preceding years at Rs. 942,13,59,936/- (AY 2000-01 to AY 2005-06) instead

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2. The grant of license is on the basis of e-tender basis allotted by State Govt. to sell the foreign & Country liquor, in retail & at particular area earmarked by them only. 3. That successful shopkeepers to whom license allotted has to purchase the liquor only from the State Govt. owned agency I.e. from "Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

5,10,2019. In the course of survey, the assessee had admitted the\nundisclosed income of Rs.1,88,12,008/- on account of discrepancy in the bills and\nvouchers most-specifically non-verifiable expenses. It was the submission that\non appeal, Id CIT(A) estimated the disallowance at 10% of said unverifiable\nexpenses. It was the submission that when Rs.1.88

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

2,36,88,041/-. As per Section 36(viia)(d) of the Act, the bad debts cannot exceed 5% of the total income computed before making any deduction under ITA 130/Ran/2023 M/s Pinnacle Capital Solutions P ltd. Vs PCIT Section 36(viia)(d) of the Act and Chapter (VIA). Since 5% of Rs. 7,19,23,183/- comes

MECON LIMITED,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

2, for the purposes of section 37(1) any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of the business or profession from the AY 2015-16 onward. Therefore, this

NEPAL CHANDRA DEY,RANCHI vs. ASSITANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

5. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal and statement of facts would show that the only issue raised in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2

NEERAJ KUMAR SINHA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayneeraj Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Prop.-M/S Neeraj Engineering, Chota Ward-1(1), Vs. Ghamaria, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-832108 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Bopps 2885 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance relying on various case laws referred to in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). 1.9 For that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by way of inserting Explanation 2 and Explanation 5

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

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

M/S EKLAVYA ESTATE PVT.LTD.,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance, 5) That lastly, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- DCIT vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd. [2025] 171 taxmann.com 133 (Pune-Trib.) [26-12-2024] It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has not specified as to under which limb of provisions of section 2704(2

S. K. TIMBERS,BURMAMINES vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by 2 AY: 2017-18 S. K. Timber the recent verdict

INDUTECH SOLUTIONS AND MANUFACTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT APPEALS, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.9,05,917/-. 2 AY: 2018-19 Indutech Solutions and Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

M/S VED TEXTILES & APPARELS,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

ALOK KUMAR KHAITAN,RANCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.1,70,592/- and Rs. 4,21,871/-. The issue relating to grounds taken by the different assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

MANOJ KUMAR MISHRA,SAHARPURA, SINDRI, JHARKHAND-828122 vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.57,28,360/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

TRIDENT METAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) NFAC, DELHI, DEILHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Trident Metal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.52,686/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

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

disallowance has no adverse impact on revenue whereas the fact was that the assessee company had claimed wrong expenses, thereby misrepresented the facts and figure, liable for impositionof penaltyu/s270AoftheI.T.Act1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 270A of the I.T.Act; 1961 without considering the provisions of section 270A(2