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 Sahaym/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 D.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

35,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 49,38,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) CSR Expenses ₹ 13,66,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,87,87,00,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271

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 Sahaym/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 D.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

35,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 49,38,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) CSR Expenses ₹ 13,66,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,87,87,00,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271

M/S SHRI RAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIY, C.C.1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2016-17

35,67,610/- in proceedings u/s271AAB the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance that arises for our apt adjudication is that of correctness of the lower authorities’ invoking the penal action in question. We notice at the outset that the Assessing Officer’s penalty

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’).

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that a search and seizure action u/s 132(4) was carried out on the premises of the assessee and during the search action, no incriminating material was found. However, the search party extracted the statement

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.” 11. We note that by way of issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, as noted above, the assessing officer, during the original assessment proceedings

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are separately initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The above statement of the Assessing Officer IS not legally tenable due to the following reasons.- The AO has assumed that no such liability existed in the form of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.3

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

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