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) or 2704(9

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’).

section 143(1)(a) of the Act would show that it provides for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report, but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return. 9

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

Section 37(1) of the Act is unsustainable and consequently we delete the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 471/Ran/2024 stands allowed. 9. Coming to the revenue's appeal, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that in respect of amount of ₹ 57.00 lacs, the recipients have

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

section 40(a)(ia) as amended by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015 prescribing such disallowance to be restricted to 30% only than the entire amount of Rs.1,79,800/-, applies with retrospective effect. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposes this legal plea. He pleads that the said proviso does not carry any retrospective effect. We find no force in Revenue

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

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

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 was no reason

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

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

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

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 was no reason

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

disallowed under Section 37 read with section 40A(2b) of the Act on estimate basis being 20% of the expenditure claimed. The Ld. AR, then placed reliance on the decision made by Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of M/s Ravi Metallics Ltd Vs PCIT Sambalpur in ITA No. 34/CTK/2021 dated 30/05/2022, wherein it was held as under

KUMAR PRATIK,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAHIBGANJ

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kumar Pratik, I.T.O., Tower C2, Flat 1402, Eden City, Sahibganj. Vs. Mahestala, Kolkata-700137. Pan No. Buapp 7990 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 3,08,005/- towards stamp duty and registration charges of Flat. This amount was received from sister, Kumari Sonali for payment of stamp duty and registration. She is my sister and received the amount as gift which is not taxable as received from relative. Kumari Sonali, Doner

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

section 143(3), determining the total income at ₹9,95,690, after making disallowances, including ₹3 lakhs on trip expenses

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and stated that these expenses are penal in nature and thus, the same cannot be allowed under Section 37 of the Act because the assessee BCCL is discharging the liability on behalf of coal buyers and it was the primary responsibility of the coal buyers to bear this cost. The FSA entered into

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and stated that these expenses are penal in nature and thus, the same cannot be allowed under Section 37 of the Act because the assessee BCCL is discharging the liability on behalf of coal buyers and it was the primary responsibility of the coal buyers to bear this cost. The FSA entered into

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by the assessee. (c) Merely, making a claim which is held as not sustainable under law should not lead to penalty, when the assessee had furnished full details in the return of income and the claim is reasonably plausible. 3.3.4. Seen from the above scuttled position of law, the appellant

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowing an expense and by not accepting the interpretation given by the assessee. (c) Merely, making a claim which is held as not sustainable under law should not lead to penalty, when the assessee had furnished full details in the return of income and the claim is reasonably plausible. 3.3.4. Seen from the above scuttled position of law, the appellant

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

disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer out of interest and remuneration paid to the partners. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this ground reads as under:- “8.4. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have also perused the assessment order. Section 2(23) of the Act defines ‘firm’ as a firm shall have the meaning assigned

SHREE SREE BALANANDA TRUST,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

9) of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not furnished any evidence for filing of Form-10 for the impugned assessment year. The claim of assessee regarding deduction under Section 11 of the Act was not considered by the Assessing Shree Sree Balananda Trust Vs ITO (E) Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act, since

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]

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) comes into play, but, as for latter, there is no such disabling provision as long as the expenses, even in discharge of corporate social responsibility on voluntary basis, can be said to be "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business". There is no dispute that the expenses in question

MECON LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2 , RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) comes into play, but, as for latter, there is no such disabling provision as long as the expenses, even in discharge of corporate social responsibility on voluntary basis, can be said to be "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business". There is no dispute that the expenses in question