TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

house property D - Profits and gains of business or profession E - Capital gains F - Income from other sources 8.1. The income in the present case, if at all, is traceable to 'Capital gains' which is one of the heads of income. If by application of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 48 which are integrally connected with each

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

additional ground is in respect of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) against return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, the entire assessment is null and void. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, house property

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

additional ground is in respect of non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) against return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, the entire assessment is null and void. 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, deriving income from salary, house property

MISRILALL JAIN & SONS,SINGHBHUM WEST vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 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 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [PAN: AABFM2851Q] vs. ACIT, CC-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 21, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain of ₹30,55,833, claimed as exempt, arising from sale of equity shares on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information received through a list forwarded from the PMO/Investigation Wing, alleging that

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

house property. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the ACIT Vs Sri Vikash Agarwal audit report filed by the assessee that the assessee has taken unsecured loans of ₹ 1.00 crore from M/s Amar Steels, ₹ 1,40,27,614/- from M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises and ₹ 36,10,000/- from M/s JDK Furnitech. Regarding the unsecured loan from M/s Amar

DULU MAHATO,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property originally belonged to the assessee’s father and on his demise, it is jointly owned by the assessee and his three brothers. It was the submission that it is fairly agreed that there has been renovation in the property. It was the submission that all the brothers are also replied to the notices issued u/s.133

DULU MAHATO,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property originally belonged to the assessee’s father and on his demise, it is jointly owned by the assessee and his three brothers. It was the submission that it is fairly agreed that there has been renovation in the property. It was the submission that all the brothers are also replied to the notices issued u/s.133

GITA KUMARI,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

addition made by the AO of Rs. 23,71,298/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of 2 AY: 2017-18 Gita Kumari undisclosed investment in the construction of residential house on the basis of report of valuation officer. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income

VISHWANATH PRASAD VISHWKARMA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(4), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property on 27.7.2012. It was the submission that the sale consideration of the property was Rs.3,20,00,000/-. It was the submission that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring long term capital gains. In the computation of long term capital gains, the assessee had adopted the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.25

SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ACIT OR DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house in Bokaro before retirement in 2017\nThe amount given shall be accounted for at the time of division of property between the\nbrothers whenever it takes place in future.\nFrom the financial year 2016-17, my brother Sudhir Kumar Jha also started looking after\nthe agriculture activities on some portion of land with our mutual understanding, in view

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

properties which were rented to the assessee and the same was disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. It was a submissions that on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that in respect of the issue of bogus purchases, the same could not be considered under Section 68 of the Act and the same was liable to be considered