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

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

95 & 103/Ran/2023 ACIT/DCIT Vs BCCL (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1)." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee

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

95 & 103/Ran/2023 ACIT/DCIT Vs BCCL (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the demurrage charges paid to Railways is not penal in nature and does not fall within the purview of explanation to Section 37(1)." 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee

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

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

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, 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

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, 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

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, 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,RNCHI vs. ACIT 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

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT 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

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS 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

KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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 Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), where the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000. 4. Dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

95, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act the Assessing Officer could allow or disallow

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DHANBAD vs. M/S HIMANGSU MAHTO, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

95,786/- out of which the assessee has repaid Rs. 2,28,25,000/- during the year and balance remained outstanding was only Rs. 26,07,898/- . The assessee has also paid interest amounting to Rs. 41,233/- after deduction of tax at source of Rs. 4,123/- and thus, the closing balance of loan outstanding to M/s. Royal Securities

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

disallowance of expenses is as under :- Sl. Head Amount Issue involved 1 Lease Rent paid for 133,78,37,000/- Whether revenue the acquisition of expenditure or capital Forest land expenditure. 2 Prior period 8,99,66,000/- Whether ascertained & expenses crystalized during the year. 3 Land & Crop 89,82,07,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital

DCIT,CIRCLE-1RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD 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 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

disallowance of expenses is as under :- Sl. Head Amount Issue involved 1 Lease Rent paid for 133,78,37,000/- Whether revenue the acquisition of expenditure or capital Forest land expenditure. 2 Prior period 8,99,66,000/- Whether ascertained & expenses crystalized during the year. 3 Land & Crop 89,82,07,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD 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 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