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

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 7.3 As stated earlier, the agreement for sale date 08.11.2009 is not registered, which ought to have been registered as per the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act. Therefore, unregistered agreement to sell is not of any evidentiary value as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7.4 In view of these

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

property and that a farm house cannot convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land. She prayed for relief. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, we hold as follows. 6. The ld. CIT(A) at the last paragraph

DR. SANJAY KUMAR,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house properties of the assesse shown by the assesse in the returno The ld AR therefore prayed before the bench that for the foregoing reasons the revisionary order may kindly be quashed. 5. Per Contra, the ld DR vehemently opposed the arguments of the ld AR by submitting that the ld AO has not examined the issue of claim

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assesse is a retired bank employee. Since no notice could be served upon him, he was not able to adduce evidences on his behalf. The appellant stated before AO that the property at village Pandara consisting of a house and land appurtenant

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

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

house property and other sources and long term capital gain from sale of flats. The assessee alongwith Smt Asha Devi Adukia purchased a land with building on 10.11.1981. Smt. Asha Devi Adukia gifted her part of the land with building to Prakash Kumar Adukia on 20.11.2006. Thereafter, the assessee alongwith Prakash Kumar Adukia decided to develop and construct flat after

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

house property, capital gain and other sources. Original return was filed on 14.09.2011, reporting a total income of Rs.19,36,530/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO recorded the reasons to believe stating that assessee has claimed long term capital gain as exempt income amounting to Rs.1,83,47,999/- which has not been substantiated during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A and thereafter

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

house property, capital gain and other sources. Original return was filed on 14.09.2011, reporting a total income of Rs.19,36,530/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO recorded the reasons to believe stating that assessee has claimed long term capital gain as exempt income amounting to Rs.1,83,47,999/- which has not been substantiated during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A and thereafter

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

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BAJAJ, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

house. He transferred the ownership by agreement of sale dated 09/08/2008 for the consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Shri Om Prakash Bajaj, paid the consideration by four cheques of IDBI Bank. They were of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 05/08/2008, Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 02/09/2008, Rs.8,00,000/- dated 23/10/2008 and Rs.7,51,000/- dated 23/10/2010 aggregating

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