SMITA,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD 3(4),, CHAIBASA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018–19 declaring total income of ₹6,07,870. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on the ground that the assessee

ANWESH KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

reassess such income. But in this case, there has been no income which has escaped assessment, the assessing officer in regard to deductions claimed by assessee wanted documentary evidences for the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) is not justified by upholding the AO's order of addition of Rs. 1,20,879/- on account of HRA and addition

KONDA KARABI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykonda Karabi, D.C.I.T., G/15, Nargis, Ashiana Garden Sonari, Circle-1, Vs. Jamshedpur-831011 Jamshedpur. Pan No. Abwpk 3757 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, partly allowed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022, determining total income at ₹4,91,63,670/-, after

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022, determining total income at ₹4,91,63,670/-, after

RINKI SINGH ,JAMSHEDPUR TELCO vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rinki Singh, I.T.O., Flat No. 5703, Prakirti Shanti Valley Ward 2(1), Vs. Society, Hurlung, Telco, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Issps 0698 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

reassessment by the learned ITO." 2. Facts of the case are that the assessment under Section 147 read with section 144B

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO 1(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Kumar Mishra… ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant 22/20, Mishra Niwas, Kharangajhar, Near Hanumanmandir Road Telco, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831004. [Pan: Agdpm2983R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)…………………...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 04, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

144B of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on account of the alleged cash deposits of ₹1,07,71,000, which formed the very basis for reopening. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹8,09,714 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, comprising opening capital

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

144B, making an addition of ₹77,72,000 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition was made on the allegation that the assessee purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated as income

VISION & VISION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACUT/ DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 31.03.2025 for A.Y. 2018–19. The assessee challenges the legality and validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT and the consequent revision of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

RAJENDER SHANGARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.266/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajendra Shangari, Jamshedpur.................…...........................……….……Appellant Plot 9, Bhuiyadih, Agrico, Jamshedpur – 831009. [Pan: Alcps6310F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vinod Agarwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 15, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 16.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In Contractual Jobs To Tata Steel & State Government Wherein The Final Job Is Subject To Strict Scrutiny By Officials & Government Inspectors & Filed Return Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,58,20,920/- For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Subsequently, In The Case Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Invoked Section 148 Proceedings & Completed The Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Adding An Amount Of Rs.38,46,188/- To The Income Of The Assessee Stating That The Alleged Sum Was Bogus Purchase. 3. Dissatisfied With The Above Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Reassessment Order, Where The Ld. Cit(A)

section 148 proceedings and completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by adding an amount of Rs.38,46,188/- to the income of the assessee stating that the alleged sum was bogus purchase. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the reassessment