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.

68 of the Act cannot be made in a year in which no fresh credit has been received. Respectfully following the binding precedents and considering the undisputed factual position, we hold that the addition of ₹2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is unsustainable in law. The same is directed

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.

68 of the Act cannot be made in a year in which no fresh credit has been received. Respectfully following the binding precedents and considering the undisputed factual position, we hold that the addition of ₹2,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is unsustainable in law. The same is directed

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

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

154 ITA No.222/R/2019 & C.O.12/R/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT, Cir-3,RAN Vs. Sh Sumit Ramsisaria Page 8 2012-2013 4,75,36,565 2013-2014 3,64,11,096 • As can be seen from the above table, the quantum of sundry creditors is reducing year to year and there is no unusual trend during the FY relevant

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)

68,375/-. (xv).Amount debited of Rs. 6,86,000/- as donation. (xvi).Proof of TDS deducted,fixed assets details, short/long term capital gain. (xvii) Balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank statement etc. The assessee submitted the documents and details, as mentioned above, during the original assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in response to notice under

MAA CHINNA CEMENT & ISPAT (P) LTD,HAZARIBAGH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiरोक आवेदन (S.A. No.01/Ran/2020 (Arising Out Ita No.203/Ran/2019) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:-2015-16

68,227/- 2. We find during the course of hearing that these entities are part of “Rungta” group only and this clinching fact has gone unrebetted from the Revenue side. Couple with this, there is further no quarrel that all the relevant notice(s) issued u/s 133(6) of the Act stood duly received / replied from these group entities’ side

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAMAD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(4), JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Rajendra Kumar Samad, I.T.O., Dipasai, Kharswan, Saraikela-833216 Ward 2(4), Vs. (Jharkhand) Jamshedpur. Pan No. Fiops 6380 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 89 had been granted and credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 5,68,775/- had also been given. The system is wrongly calculated interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C during passing the assessment order. In this regard, it is found that the calculation of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C should not be charged during passing the assessment order