SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

section 68 of the Act. In view of above we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of Revenue is dismissed. " 4. The AO in our view was confused. He at para (3) of his order states that the addition u/s 68 of the Act and at para 3.6 states that

KAUSHAL JAIN,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Kaushal Jain, I.T.O., Radheshyam Garage Lane, Old Ward 1(5), Vs. Commissioner Compound, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Afgpj 0706 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the cash deposits of ₹ 52,16,169/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has also given the basis on which the addition was made by providing a table in the assessment order in paragraph

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:

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 money is received in the current year. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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

3,29,202. We do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Another issue relates to the addition of ₹59,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68. During the financial year 2014-15, the assessee had received loan

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in sustaining

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in sustaining

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)

3. The CIT(A) granted partial relief but sustained the above additions, against which the assessee is now in appeal before us. Addition under Section 68 – ₹7,40,000/- (Unsecured Loan) The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had received unsecured loans aggregating to ₹20,00,000/- from M/s Shobha Interior Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee himself

SHRI BIRENDRA PRASAD,BOKARO vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BOKARO

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

68 of the I.T Act. The Assessing Officer's action is, therefore, upheld. The appellant fails on his grounds of appeal. 7. Aggrieved, by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused material available on record. We note that the AO has failed

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

Section 68 of the Act which is applicable in case of unexplained cash credits. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition and thus, the finding of ld. CIT(A) do not call for any interference. Thus, ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue challenging the addition of Rs. 46,86,305/- is also

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

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

section 68 of the Act. In view of above we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of Revenue is dismissed.” ITA No.222/R/2019 & C.O.12/R/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Cir-3,RAN Vs. Sh Sumit Ramsisaria Page 13 We accordingly find no reason to accept Revenue’s arguments seeking to revive

ITO WD -2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS &STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that this appeal should not have been filed by the revenue. We note from the facts placed before us that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS&STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 12. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that this appeal should not have been filed by the revenue. We note from the facts placed before us that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) read with

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

68 of the Act is uncalled for. Thus Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground No. 3 relates to exemption under section 10(38) of the Act at Rs.10,60,599/-. We notice that the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition in the hands of assessee merely by observing that the said addition should

M/S STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

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

13. The ld.AR also argued that the CIT-A was right in holding the same. The AO made such addition only on the basis of a statement of one director, Shri Pawan Kumar recorded at the time of survey, wherein he had allegedly admitted to pay the tax thereon on unaccounted sales. The AO made the impugned additions with respect

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

SANJEEV SABLOK,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(4), JSR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.147/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sanjeev Sablok, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), 4, I.C.Road, Circuit House Area Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adkps 4050 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

Section 68 of the 9 Act. We notice from the bank statements produced at page 19 and 20 of the paper book that there are opening balance of Rs.7,35,638/- & Rs.6,93,559/- respectively in both the bank statements and from the bank statements on 11.05.2009 Rs.4,95,000/-, Rs.4,95,000/- has been transferred to Sablok & Associates

DCIT, HAZARIBAGH vs. SRI RAJENDRA LAL, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra Lal, Vs Acit, Circle-2, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . & A.Y. : 2009-2010 Acit, Circle-2, Hazaribag Vs Shri Rajendra Lal, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) .

3) of the Act on presumption, no defect whatsoever has been pointed out for maintenance of books of account. From the above submissions of assessee, findings of AO and observations of the CIT(A), we are of the opinion matter needs examination and verification on the above two counts at the end of CIT(A). Therefore, we remit both

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

3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, 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

3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,01,52,25,826/- The penalty proceedings under Section