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

unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act. The Assessing Officer's action is, therefore, upheld. The appellant fails on his grounds of appeal. 7. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We note that

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

cash deserve to be deleted, especially when sufficient additional income had already been offered by the assessee during the survey operation itself. 4.3 With regard to the disallowance of disallowance of ₹14,38,359, it was contended that the CIT(A) committed a serious legal error in changing the applicable section from section 14A to section 40(a)(ia) without

MAA CHINNA CEMENT & ISPAT (P) LTD,HAZARIBAGH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiरोक आवेदन (S.A. No.01/Ran/2020 (Arising Out Ita No.203/Ran/2019) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:-2015-16

cash credits addition of ₹23,33,31,180/- (share capital / premium) and unsecured loans amount of ₹436,85,914/-; respectively. Corresponding entity-wise details read as follows:- Name Nature Amount in dispute M/s Raunak Ispat Enterprises Share capital 13,31,99,600/- Pvt. Ltd. M/s Exclusive Infra Project Pvt. Share capital & unsecured loan + 17,11,820/- Ltd. interest

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S A.K.TRANSPORT, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. 4. In the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A)deleted the addition by holding and observing as under: “As can be seen from the above table, the quantum of sundry creditors almost remains the same vis a vis earlier years and rather in terms

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

disallowance of Rs.6,71,212/-. 8. Lastly comes the assessee’s challenge to section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.41

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

disallowance of Rs.6,71,212/-. 8. Lastly comes the assessee’s challenge to section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.41

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

disallowance of Rs.6,71,212/-. 8. Lastly comes the assessee’s challenge to section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.41

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

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

credit purchases can be added under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when all the purchases have been accepted as genuine and all the creditors stood in the books of accounts of the appellant. As regards applicability of provisions of section 41 (1), the facts clearly show that the appellant did not write back the sundry creditors

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

unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Apart from the above, the AO also disallowed set-off of certain

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

cash credits. It was a further submission that in respect of the expenses paid and claimed as rental expenditure to an extent of ₹ 57,00,000/- and ₹ 36,00,000/- was treated as unexplained expenditure on the ground that the payments have been made to various persons who are not having any properties which were rented to the assessee

SHYAM SUNDER BHAGAT,PAKUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), DHANBAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2010-11

unexplained cash credits addition made in both the lower proceedings to the tune of Rs.3.25 lakhs and Rs.5 lakh involving as many creditors Shri Paras Bhakat and Shri Ram Yadav; respectively. I find during the course of hearing that the former creditor Shri Paras Bhakat had not only appeared in person but also filed all bank statement details

ASHOK KUMAR ,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godarai.T.A No.212/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Kumar, Bokaro Vs. Ito, Wd-3(1), Bokaro Purulia Road, Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhan-827013. Pan/Gir No. : Aiqpk5881K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

unexplained cash credits. The assessee appears to have explained that the same came from six parties. He also filed said six parties’ confirmations and bank accounts before the Assessing Officer who declined the same after holding that mere filing such confirmations and documentary evidence does not satisfactorily discharge the taxpayer’s onus to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

unexplained credit, Rs.60,48,903/- as rebate allowed to customer and sustained the additions in respect of Rs.1,89,100/- as sales promotion expenses and Rs.1,28,400/- as gift to retailers. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the revenue preferred the present appeal before this tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Bindhyavasini Commercial Services

SRI SURESH JOSHI ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT C.C. , JSR

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.159/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri Suresh Joshi.…....……………… … ...........…………………………Appellant 5D, Nilkanth Apartments, 26B, Camac Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aavpj1439K] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Jamshedpur.……………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Debesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Chinmaya Aurangabadkar, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 24, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.03.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jharkhand [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’]. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Stated That The Assessee Has Made Certain Expenditure On Travelling Through Its Credit Card. However, The Assessee Could Not Produce The Source Of The Said Expenditure/Repayment Of Credit Card Expenditure. He, Therefore, Made The Impugned Addition Being Expenditure From Unexplained Sources.

unexplained sources. 4. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the source of the expenditure was out of two proprietary concerns of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the withdrawal was by way of cash from the aforesaid proprietary concerns which did not show that the said withdrawn amount was used for payment