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

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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) were issued and necessary compliances were made by the assessee. The assessee is a salaried persons and draws salary from the District Education Office, Saraikela- Kharswan under Government of Jharkhand. During the course of assessment proceedings, documents such as salary statement, Form No. 16, Form No. 26AS, computation

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

154. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the following companies have invested the following amounts in the assessee company: 1. Nagina Exports & Finvest Pvt Ltd,. : Rs. 4,83,00,000 2. Tolasariya Viniyog Pvt Ltd. : Rs. 4,36,00,000 3. Lupin Commodeal