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

DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI vs. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, 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 ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

55,972 were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. However, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of ₹1,07,26,895 towards excess stock, sustained the addition of ₹4,08,000 towards short cash, sustained disallowance of ₹14,38,359, but while doing so, changed the section

SMT SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

55 and\nfrom 9 to 160 and one person was holding the shares much prior to that start of rise\nof the share, then how it can be inferred that such person entered into sham\ntransaction few years ago and prepared for getting the benefit after few years when\nthe share will start rising steeply. In present case even there

SHIV PRASAD RAM,BOKARO vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BOKARO

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Shiv Prasad Ram, I.T.O., Near Petrol Pump, Sector-9/A, Basanti Ward 3(1), Vs. More, Sector-Ix, S.O. Alkusa, Bokaro. Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aqepr 2909 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

55,91,000 (created in Bank of Baroda) were sourced from retirement benefits received by the appellant from SAIL The AO did not consider documentary evidence such as Shiv Pd. Ram Vs ITO the superannuation order and bank statements provided during the appellate proceedings. The fixed deposits were not unexplained investments but directly linked to retirement funds, which were

SMT. SAROJ AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

55 and\nfrom 9 to 160 and one person was holding the shares much prior to that start of rise\nof the share, then how it can be inferred that such person entered into sham\ntransaction few years ago and prepared for getting the benefit after few years when\nthe share will start rising steeply. In present case even there

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

55,000/-, M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd has disclosed a turnover of Rs. 6,50,05,714/-. (Audited account of M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd is at Page 131 - 140 of the paper book.) Moreover Form 26A of M/s Dev Multicom Pvt Ltd was also in on record with the AO as stated above. d) That similar to the above

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,295 and disallowance of commission\nexpenditure: ₹3,00,000 by assessing the total income of assessee at\n*22,69,680.\n3.\nAggrieved by the above order the assessee went in appeal where the\nld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the reassessment as well\nas additions.\n4.\nDissatisfied with the above order the assessee is in appeal

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

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

JUSCO EDUCATION MISSION FOUNDATION ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE , RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

55 taxmann.com 255 (SC)/(2015) 8 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law common to educational institutions under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi) has to be decided as under: "(1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating Persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

55,000 shares) respectively The assessee filed details such as share allotment registers, copies of return of income of the investor companies, their audited financial statements, bank statements, PAN details, and confirmations. However, the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee. According to him, the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the investors

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

Section\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

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

Section\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

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

Section\n300/R/17\nAY 09-10\n302/R/17\nAY 11-12\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

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

Section\n1\nUnabsorbed depreciation - covereed by ITAT\norder Dt. 31.03.2023 of AY 2008-09 u/s 143(3)\n263/143(3)\n147/143(3)\n2,30,09,91,962\n3\nContractual Expenses unpaid liability disallowed\n29,00,32,000\n5\nExpense relating to exempt income -disallowance\nu/s14A-covereed by ITAT order

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

55,280/-. If it was not to be allowed to be debited from the assets side, then the ld. Assessing Officer should have verified this fact from this Division instead of disbelieving the version of the assessee. This approach is not justifiable. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal and delete this addition. 9. Ground No. 4: In this ground

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