DCIT,CIRCLE-1RANCHI, 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 Sahayd.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 M/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

37,000/- (ii) Exempt income & application of Sec. 14A of ₹ 2,62,95,000/- the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Prior period expenses ₹ 8,99,66,000/- (iv) Land & Crop Compensation ₹ 89,82,07,000/- 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

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

37,61,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,71,18,14,440/- 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(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another

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)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

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