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)

section 148 was never furnished to the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are therefore bad in law. Further, the Assessing Officer adopted stamp duty valuation without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), rendering the assessment invalid. 5

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 263 of the Act is 5 AY: 2012-13 Kross Limited barred by limitation or not. In our considered opinion ,the scope of powers of the AO in original assessment proceedings and reassessment

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)

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 manner without application of mind. The Ld. AR submitted the copy of the approval order supplied to the assessee shows that approval was granted commonly for multiple assessees through

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment is void ab initio. On merits, it was submitted\nthat books of account were never rejected under section 145(3)of the act\nand no discrepancy in physical stock was found. The additions were\nmade merely on suspicion due to fall in turnover. The Ld. AR stated that\nfor AY 2018–19, assessment was completed under section

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act of 1961. That was not done within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153B of the Act of 1961. The respondent-authority was fully aware of the fact that proceedings under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 would be barred by limitation, therefore, recourse was taken to the provisions contained

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act of 1961. That was not done within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153B of the Act of 1961. The respondent-authority was fully aware of the fact that proceedings under Section 153C of the Act of 1961 would be barred by limitation, therefore, recourse was taken to the provisions contained

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”).

reassessment order making additions over and above the returned income is bad in law. Besides that the interest income of ₹4,75,23,253 arose from fixed deposits maintained as security with I.T.A. No.468/Ran/2025 Misrilall Jain & Sons Government departments such as Forest Department, Pollution Control Board and mining authorities for obtaining and renewing mining licences and contracts. No fresh deposits

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 making an addition of ₹2,00,00,000/- crore treating the pending share application money as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where

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 making an addition of ₹2,00,00,000/- crore treating the pending share application money as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where

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

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 and it may be admitted for adjudication. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. BENKO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished all primary evidences, including loan confirmations, ledger accounts, PAN and CIN details of the lenders, bank statements showing the loan entries, and their audited balance sheets as on 31.03.2015. These documents formed part of the assessee’s audited financial statements. Thus, the assessee discharged the primary onus cast upon it under section

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.467/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 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 20, 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 09.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

reassessment proceedings, the assessee remained largely non-compliant, and therefore, the Assessing Officer was left with no alternative but to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at ₹7,34,14,430, making the following addition of ₹5

MANISH AGARWAL,BALLYGUNGE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.16/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 201-12 Manish Agarwal……….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 35A, Tirumala Apartment, Ballygunge Park, Kol- 700019. [Pan: Acdpa1176E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi......…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sunit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, 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 Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 28.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee Group On 23.10.2019. Pursuant To The Said Search, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Notice Under Section 153A Of The Act Calling Upon The Assessee To File Its Return Of Income For Six Assessment Years Preceding The Year Of Search. In Response To The Notice Under Section 153A, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2011–12, Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,95,180/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Several Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee, Which

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the search under section 132 was conducted on 23.10.2019 and the assessment year involved is 2011–12. The total additions made by the AO aggregate to ₹10,88,907/-, which is well below

SARYU DEVI,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Saryu Devi…..………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant W/O Hira Nath Singh, Neori, Vikas, Sadar Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835217. [Pan: Geppd1201D] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi…..….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 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 10.06.2025 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 An Individual Lady, Residing In A Village Area. She Had Not Filed Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 As, According To Her, She Had No Taxable Income. The Assessee Was Not Registered On The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal During The Relevant Period. Her E-Filing Registration Was Done For The First Time On 09.03.2025. The Ao Received Information Through The Risk Management Strategy (Rms) That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of ₹30,70,000. Based On This Information, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated After Following

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of Act are held to be bad in law due to non-service of notice and even on merits, the addition under section 69A of the Act is unsustainable, as there was no monetary transaction between the parties. Accordingly, the addition of ₹30,70,000 made by the AO and sustained

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”).

section 69C of the Act on account of alleged difference in purchases was made without any cogent reasoning or evidence. I.T.A. No.229/Ran/2024 Arvind Kumar Mishra 5. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the reassessment

SUBIR MANDAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), CHAIBASA, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 188/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Subir Mandal,….…………………………………..Appellant 61, Parsudih, Pramathanagar, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand [Pan:Anfpm1717N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………...Respondent Ward-3(4), Chaibasa, 47, Ch Area, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

reassessment proceeding under section 148. However, notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices under section 142(1) could not be acted upon by the assessee. The assessee purchased an immovable property jointly owned along with his wife. The total consideration jointly paid was Rs.20,00,000/- where the assessee paid only a portion of consideration and the rest was paid

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

5. On the other hand Ld. DR supported the PCIT’s order, submitting that the AO failed to carry out adequate verification and therefore the Ld. PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment record and the material placed before us. On perusal of the reassessment records

M/S. CCOMMERCIAL CARRIERS LTD,BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.28/Ran/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S Commercial Carriers Ltd.....................…...........................……….……Appellant 1F & G, Swinhoe Castle, Swinhoe Street, Ballygunge, W.B – 700019. [Pan:Aaacc6949F] Vs. Pcit, Ranchi……………..…..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri C M Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajib Jain, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Cit, Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Revising The Original Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Transport & Infrastructure Business. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed An Order Under Section 143(3), Determining The Total Income At ₹9,95,690, After Making Disallowances, Including ₹3 Lakhs On Trip Expenses & ₹6,95,692 Under Section 37 Of The Act. However, On Examination Of The Assessment Records, The Ld. Pcit Ranchi, Observed That Sundry Creditors Amounting To ₹2,42,35,736 Were Shown In The Audited Balance Sheet, But No Enquiry Or Verification Was Made During Assessment Proceeding & Similarly Issue Relating To Investment In Purchase Of Trucks & Trailers Amounting To ₹5,10,44,030 Was Recorded; However, The Assessee Had

reassessment order passed by AO under Ld. PCIT’s direction. Therefore, the assessee contended that there was due application of mind by the AO in the original assessment order and the revision under section 263 was unjustified. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR. contended that the AO had issued notice under section 142(1), but there was no clear