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 proceedings. We, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in the present case is invalid and bad in law due to non-supply of approval under section 151 of the Act. 9

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.

reassess the income in respecdt of any issue, even an issue in respect of which no reasons were indicated in the notice under section 148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section 263(2). The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 263(2) was barred by limitation”. 9

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassess the income in respect of any issue, even an issue in respect of which no reasons were indicated in the notice under section 148(2). This, however, will not obviate the bar of limitation under section 263(2). The invocation of the jurisdiction under section 263(2) was barred by limitation”. 9

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.

9. Accordingly, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act is quashed and appeal

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)

section 147 of the Act are bad in law and void ab initio. Once the reassessment itself is quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the additions made therein do not survive and are not required to be adjudicated on merits. 9

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)

Section 148 since the Supreme Court in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR. 1, while dealing with the action of the Assessing Officer to rectify a mistake and seeking to recompute and reassess the depreciation which was allowed in excess of the permissible limit, held as follows (page 9

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)

section 147, however, remain the same." [Emphasis supplied] 5. For the aforestated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has reopened the assessment u/s.147

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”).

9. That from the above case laws, it can be concluded that the law is well settled to the extent that no adverse finding can be drawn on any issue until and unless a show cause notice is issued to the assessee in terms of section 148A(b). In this case of the assessee, the show cause notice

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

9 wherein the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been provided and therein it is clear that search and seizure operation were carried out in the premises of one Shri Rohit Sharma on 16/11/2017 and whereas the assessee i.e. Luxmi Hard Coke Manufacturing Company, no search action had taken place in the premises

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

9 wherein the reasons recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been provided and therein it is clear that search and seizure operation were carried out in the premises of one Shri Rohit Sharma on 16/11/2017 and whereas the assessee i.e. Luxmi Hard Coke Manufacturing Company, no search action had taken place in the premises

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

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 and 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

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

9) The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. [Para 10] In view of above, impugned penalty order passed by the High Court deserved to be confirmed

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

9) The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. [Para 10] In view of above, impugned penalty order passed by the High Court deserved to be confirmed

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

9,95,690, after making disallowances, including ₹3 lakhs on trip expenses and ₹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

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

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

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

9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing

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

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

9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing

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

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

9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it was imperative for the Assessing

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

9 of 1932)......”. Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 state:- “Section 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