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

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

4 and submitted that the AO has invoked provision of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposing penalty on the assessee, which provides that, where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 of the Act before the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner

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

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

4 and submitted that the AO has invoked provision of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposing penalty on the assessee, which provides that, where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 of the Act before the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner

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

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

4 and submitted that the AO has invoked provision of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposing penalty on the assessee, which provides that, where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 of the Act before the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANCHI, JHARKHAND vs. AMBA CARBONISATION PVT. LTD., RANCHI, JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us contending that notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 21.01.2022 was issued. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment order on technical grounds. The learned Departmental Representative supported the assessment order and submitted that issuance

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. CIT(A) 5

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

5 M/s Nandlal Keshardeo Vs ACIT (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the date

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 ..

5 (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard, or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made- (a) by the Income- tax Officer, where the penalty exceeds ten thousand rupees; (b) by the Assistant Commissioner, where

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

5 *Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4}/23(2) of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, No. dated have concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. You are hereby requested to appear before

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

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 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act was granted in a mechanical

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)

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax 5 which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section

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 143(3) of the Act, assessee has prayed that the legal ground goes to the root of the matter for which all the facts are already on record

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 was claimed to be started by assessing officer on 24.12.2014 which is also beyond four years. 8. It is a settled position of law that where an assessment under sub-section 3 of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, then no action shall be taken under 5 Om Prakash Singh Assessment Year

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.

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended before us that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. Pr. CIT is incorrect and hopelessly barred by limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew out attention to the provisions of Section 263(2) of the Act which provides for limitation for exercise of jurisdiction

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.

5,09,17,506/- vide order dated 17.12.2018 passed under Section 147 read with 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

LAXMI HARD COKE MFG CO.,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

5. Reverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, there was no search and seizure in the premises of assessee, the search had taken place in the premises of one Rohit Sharma wherein incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and that formed the basis for the department to proceed against the assessee under Section 147/148

LUXMI HARD COKE MFG. CO,,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

5. Reverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, there was no search and seizure in the premises of assessee, the search had taken place in the premises of one Rohit Sharma wherein incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and that formed the basis for the department to proceed against the assessee under Section 147/148

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(2) was issued against return under 148.” 4. On confrontation of these additional grounds for their admission, Ld. Sr. DR has not raised any objection. Accordingly, the same were admitted for adjudication. 5. Since additional grounds are on the jurisdictional issue, we are inclined to take up the same first. First three additional grounds relate to approval