SRI SAURABH TIWARY,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CIR-3 , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. P a g e 4 | 7 ITA No. 284. /R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14 9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well

SHRI AJAY KUMARS/O SHRI KISAN BHAGWAT,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-2(5), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 28 of the Act, being a business, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the transaction under the head income from business and compute the tax liability accordingly. The assessee is Ajay Kumar ITA No. 207/Ran/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 directed to submit necessary details to compute income from business from such transaction. 10. Regarding second issue

SRI AJAY KUMAR ,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), HAZARIBAGH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.243/Ran/2016 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.207/Ran/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 28 of the Act, being a business, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the transaction under the head income from business and compute the tax liability accordingly. The assessee is Ajay Kumar ITA No. 207/Ran/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 directed to submit necessary details to compute income from business from such transaction. 10. Regarding second issue

MANISH KUMAR SAGU(HUF),RANCHI vs. ACIT, C.C.-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.26/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manish Kumar Sahu (Huf)..…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 201, Krishna Apartment, Ratu Road, Ranchi-834001. [Pan: Aaghm3591N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Ranchi…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28 , 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

28 , 2023 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.01.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Patna [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has agitated

M/S VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

28, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM Both these appeals are filed by the assessee are directed against the common order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, wherein penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. Before us, the assessee produced copy of notice u/s

VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

28, 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM Both these appeals are filed by the assessee are directed against the common order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, wherein penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed. 2. Before us, the assessee produced copy of notice u/s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAH,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 354/Ran/2016 Assessment Year :2008-09 Acit Cir 1...........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Raj Kumar Shah...................……………………………………..................................Respondent European Quarter Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833 201 [Pan: Alkps 7305 M] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order The Revenue’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

28, 2018 ORDER The revenue’s appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna wherein the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, has been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer in his notice under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

28 , 2018 ORDER All these are revenue’s appeal directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer in his notice under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

28 , 2018 ORDER All these are revenue’s appeal directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer in his notice under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

28 , 2018 ORDER All these are revenue’s appeal directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer in his notice under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI RAJESH BATHWAL, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

28 , 2018 ORDER All these are revenue’s appeal directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Assessing Officer in his notice under section

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 may be (in addition to tax, if any payable) imposed for a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure.” We note thatwhile making the second assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, the following issues were examined by the assessing officer: (i).Incentive on sales

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

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

28 of the Income Tax Act, considered the applicability of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 41 as to what would constitute remissions or cessation of trading liability. The Hon'ble Court noted that in the reported case, the assessee has not unilaterally written back the accounts of the sundry creditors in its profit and loss account. Therefore

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

M/S KRISH CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम M/S Krish Construction, Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ranchi / V/S. Kte 4, Krish Tower, Singh More, Hatia, Ranchi-834003. Pan No.Aakfk6755G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing proportionate bank interest of Rs.7,28