URUSI RAHMAN,KADMA vs. ITO, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 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 Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

reassessment proceedings also, the assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices and did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment was completed ex parte. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹15,75,000 as income from other sources under section 56

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”).

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. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised specific

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was passed on 30/03/2023 on a total income of ₹ 23,56

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

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

56,050, showing income from salary and house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain of ₹30,55,833, claimed as exempt, arising from sale of equity shares on which Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information received through a list

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

56,30,71,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 99,32,22,000/- @ 150% of the tax sought

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

56,93,18,000/- (viii) IICM Charges ₹ 2,37,61,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,71,18,14,440/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

56,93,18,000/- (viii) IICM Charges ₹ 2,37,61,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,71,18,14,440/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed