ADHUNIK AKSHAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.,,DUMKA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

11, the relevant year for examination, if any, would have been AY 2011–12, not AY 2012–13. The AO erred in invoking section 68 of the Act in the present year. The ITAT Kolkata in Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held in identical circumstances that addition under section 68 is unsustainable when no fresh share application

M/S ANJENEYE ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA 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.74/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand – 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 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), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.08.2018 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 Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Pig Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,41,05,250, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1). During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Share Capital & Share Premium Aggregating To ₹3,00,00,000 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 148 Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Complete Details Of The Share Applicants, Including Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions. In Response, The Assessee Furnished Complete Details In Respect Of The Share Capital/Share Premium Received From The Following Parties:

11, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 06, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 21.08.2018 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

Section 68 of the Act, as we have already deleted the addition itself in assessee's appeal, this ground no more survives. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 471/Ran/2024 stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue in IT(SS)A No. 01/Ran/2025 stands dismissed

RAJESH JALAN,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in full

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

11. Accordingly, the addition of ₹20,86,500/-as made under Section 69A of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. 12. In view of the above discussion the addition of ₹7,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and the addition of ₹20,86,500/- made under Section 69A of the Act are deleted

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

11. Ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue relates to addition of Rs. 46,86,305/- made by ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Brief facts relating to the issue are that there was an increase in the capital during the year at Rs. 46,86,305/-. The claim of the assessee was that

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

11. On this issue, the Id. AR submitted that the assessee had received the said loans in the ordinary course of business, duly recorded them in the books of accounts, and had repaid the same during the year itself. The assessee had also deducted TDS on the interest paid under section 194A of the Act and deposited

MANJU DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

PARAS KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

HARISH KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

AAKRITI SARAWGI,,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

SUNILA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C. , DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

SANGITA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

RAJESH BADRI PD. MODI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

SANTOSH KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

SAMIR KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

KANTA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

68 to 69D of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and applied the special rates of tax by treating it as undisclosed income. The Ld. AR has also filed a written submission as under: "1. That a search action U/s 132 was conducted upon the Atibir Group on 17/03/2021

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

5. We also proceed further and notice that once the Assessing Officer has allowed the assessee’s corresponding material purchases claim in the revenue account as a regular head of expenditure, the same very amount could not have been added as a bogus sundry creditor liability u/s 41(1) of the Act. More so, when there is no indication about

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 68 of the Act is not justified and the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by giving a detailed reason in the body of the appellate order. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and it is found that though, the ld. CIT(A) has examined the said transactions in detail and deleted

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

5,68,84,000/- 4. Total 11,60,00,000/- It is therefore clear that the objection of assessee is not tenable as the disclosure is related to only one assessee i.e. Padam Kr. Jain. It is important to mention here that the amount of disclosure is not in round figure, which itself clarifies that the disclosure is based