KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contended before us that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the ld. Pr. CIT is invalid 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 passing of order

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

M/S TENUGHAT EMTA COAL MINES LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(2), RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 147/148 of the Act and that the reopening was bad in law. 2.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the reasons to believe did not exist and the AO had reopened the assessment as a change of opinion which is not permissible in law for reopening of the assessment.” 5. Apropos this ground

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

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, 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

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

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts

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

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts

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

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in. holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is had in law and. invalid in spite the amendment of Section 271(1 B) recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts

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”).

5,39,714 and opening stock of ₹2,70,000. Further, addition of ₹2,75,647 under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure on account of alleged difference in purchases. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the Assessing

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

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

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

2% of the profit booked by the assessee at Rs. 1,64,60,000/- over and above the STT charges paid by the assessee to the brokers. However, during the course of reassessment proceedings the Ld. AO has not carried out any independent inquiry/verification to validate the allegation that undisclosed commission were paid to the broker over and above

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

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

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

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)

5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the approval under section 151 of the Act was granted in a routine and mechanical manner, without application of mind, which is evident from the approval sheet placed on record. The same approval covers multiple assessees, thereby rendering the approval invalid in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR further submitted

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 ..

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.S. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271 (1 B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated

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