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

6). The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely:- (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or 20[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that

K M MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & RESERCH CENTRE (P) LTD,BOKARO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HAZARIBAG

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal

SHRI VINSHNU KUMAR JALAN,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-2014

disallowance made by the AO out of the freight & cartage expenses on the ground Asse ssmen t Year: 2 013 -20 14 that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were attracted since the appellant was liable for making deduction u/s.194C which was not done. 2. For that as per the amended provisions of section 194(6

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’).

disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 6

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

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

6. As the ld. CIT(A) had not deleted the addition of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 35,77,52,226/- but had held that the same was liable to be considered as disallowable under Section

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

6) were not complied with because of disconnection from the employer's accounts division post-retirement. This communication gap should not be the sole reason for adverse findings against the appellant. e) Unexplained Income Claim under Section 69 The addition made under Section 69 as unexplained income is unjustified as the entire retirement benefit was explained through valid documentary evidence

RAMESH KESHRI,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD W2(3), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryramesh Keshri, I.T.O., Near Suzuki Showroom, Piska More, Ward 2(3), Vs. Ranchi-834005 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aftpk 1039 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance of trade discount. At para four (4) of the assessment order, it is noted as follows: "4.0 A letter under section 133(6

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

section 40(a)(ia) without issuing any show-cause notice or granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Such an action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the disallowance so sustained is bad in law. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case

NIRMAL KUMAR PRADEEP KUMAR ,MAIN ROAD. RANCHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

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

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirmal Nirmal Kumar Kumar Pradeep Pradeep Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Kumar, Kumar, Godrej Godrej Dealers, Dealers, Income Tax,Central Circle-1, Income Tax,Central Circle Ranchi Ranchi Pan/Gir No. .Aaahn 6882 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Choudhary, Adv Shubham Choudhary, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 2025

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D in P a g e 2 | 6 Assessment Year : 2017-18 respect of disallowance u/s.14A

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

section 133(6) of the Act for the purpose of the confirmation of sundry creditors. However we find that the AO has confirmed the addition of the sundry creditors without disallowing

M/S. HIMACHAL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5),, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowance. 6. Charging of interest under section 234A is consequential in nature. Hence this ground of appeal is rejected. 7. In the result

DCIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 37 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee company filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 23/03/2023, deleted the addition on this count on the ground that the issue of disallowance

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 37 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee company filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 23/03/2023, deleted the addition on this count on the ground that the issue of disallowance

M/S NEW PUNJAB MOTOR TRANSPORT ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-13

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed interest payment of Rs.4,36,006/- to M/s. SREI Equipments Finance Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Tata Capital Ltd., on the ground that the assesse failed to deduct TDS u/s.194C of the Act. P a g e 3 | 6

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)

6) issued to the creditors came back unserved and therefore the creditors were bogus. It is however found that the AO has treated the purchase made during the year from the same very persons as genuine. The payment made to them was also treated as genuine and disallowance was made only by applying the provisions of section

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 ..

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 not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession

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

disallowed set-off of certain losses against capital gains and finally assessed the total income at ₹4,89,67,090 vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition holding that in absence of compliance to summons under section 131 of the Act and on the basis of the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness