M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed" In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under- "Notice

SRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARDA,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharda Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi / Barajamda, West Singhbhum, V/S. Jharkhand-833221. Pan No.Ahwps4875Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed". In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- "Notice

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

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed". In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- "Notice

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)

reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act is quashed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 06.01.2026 (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.01.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4

BISHNU TRANSPORT COMPANY,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4. Dissatisfied with the order of the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. Before us, the assessee filed an additional legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the approval obtained under section

MAYUR RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHUMRITELAIYA vs. PCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited Pr. Cit, Ranchi Gujhandi Road Vs Vill – Barwadih, Jhumritelaiya Pin - 825409 Pan : Aafcm5928H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ranchi (Hereinafter ‘Ld. Pr. Cit’), Dated 30/03/2022, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr. Cit As The Revisionary Proceedings Are Hopelessly Barred By Limitation.

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which is wrong and against the provisions of section 263(2) of the Act and as there was no mistake in the said order which may have caused prejudice to the revenue. He further submitted that this issue was examined by the AO in the original assessment proceedings

M/S CHHAGANLAL AGARWAL,CHAIBASA vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.319/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Chhaganlal Agarwal, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Bari Bazar, Chaibasa-833201 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaffc 6053 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

4 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 ? 3. To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ for short, "the Act"] . Prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 , section 147 reads as under : "147. Income escaping assessment

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 was claimed to be started on 31.03.2015 which is beyond four years. The copy of the order sheet of the assessing officer, to the extent applicable for our discussion is reproduced below: “To Shri Om Prakash Singh Sukhdeo nagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi Sir, 4

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

4 AY: 2012-13 Kross Limited years period of limitation shall run from the end of financial year in which the original assessment was framed and not from the end of financial year in which the reassessment was framed when the issue on which the assessment was revised was not subject matter of reassessment proceedings. The ld. A.R. also submitted

HIRALAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO.

Section 144 of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the order of Ld. AO preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where appeal of the assessee was dismissed sustaining the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved, assessee has, inter alia, challenged the validity of the reassessment

M/S P.K.UPADHYAY vs. ITO WARD-3(5), PALAMAU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

4- DEFINITION OF “PARTNERSHIP”, ”PARTNER”, “FIRM” AND “FIRM-NAME”. "Partnership” is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually, "partners” and collectively "a firm", and the name under which their business

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”).

section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed its return declaring total income of ₹1,32,63,010, which was accepted as returned income. However, while completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make further additions and assessed ₹4

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

SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ACIT,C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his 76income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also

SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ACIT,C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his 76income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also

SURESH KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ACIT,C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his 76income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also

MARS MERCANTILES PVT.LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

4. While taking the additional ground challenging the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Act and the order passed u/s. 147 read with section