SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

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

147 is bad in eye of law and fit to be cancelled. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75000/- and Rs. 1,82,26,700/- made by Ld. AO on account of long term capital gain exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on account of share transaction of M/s Blueprint Securities

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)

u/s 234A and 234B on the assessed income. Interest should be charged on the returned income following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. 5. For that other grounds in detail will be argued at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and derives income from salary & share

NAVEEN SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.413/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Naveen Singh………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M-9 Old, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Adkps4229A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. S. Paul, Ca, 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 : January 06, 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 12.09.2024 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 Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017–18 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹43,99,340/- Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Accepting The Income As Declared. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act After Recording Reasons & Obtaining Sanction From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notice Under Section 148. Thereafter, Multiple Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Issued, Including Final Opportunity Notices, Which Were Duly Served But Remained Unanswered.

17. Accordingly, the correct stamp valuation of the property works out to ₹5,020 × 4,500 sq. ft. = ₹2,25,59,000. The value of ₹7,64,10,000 mentioned in the sale deed was arbitrarily insisted upon by the registering authority for registration purposes, without any guideline or basis. The registration certificate itself records only the value

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.

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

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

17, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: 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

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 31.03.2025 for A.Y. 2018–19. The assessee challenges the legality and validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT and 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

SHRI SANJOG PRASAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.109/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Sanjog Prasad, Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), H.No.493, B-Block, Sonari, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur-831011 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acupp 8930 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 14.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.50/Jsr/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Assessment Being Completed U/S 147/143(3) Is Ab Initio Void & Illegal. The Subject Matter For The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 Was Already Considered & Looked Into During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment U/S 143(3). As Such, This Initiation Can Only Be Said To Be Change Of Opinion. As Such, Proceeding Being Initiated U/S 147 Is Ab Initio Void, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted. 2. For That The Authorities Below Were Not Justified In Not Considering The Objection Raised By The Appellant Regarding The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147. There Was No Fresh Material Available On Record With The Ld. Ao To Suggest Any Escapement Of Income. As Such, The Proceeding Being Initiated Merely On Change Of Opinion Is Unjustified, Illegal & Fit To Be Deleted.

Section 147 of the I.T. Act 1961. Put up for kind perusal and necessary approval/sanction u/s 151(1) of Hon'ble Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamshedpur for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the assessee.” (Saikat Basu) ACIT, Circle-3(1), Jamshedpur 6 13. From the above, it is clearly discernible that the AO verified

SMT. WARSHA BAGARIA,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued. During the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer gathered information from M/s. Escorts Finance Ltd and the bank account of the assessee. He found that the total deposits in the bank account of the assessee was Rs,12,07,879/-. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation