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:

section 68 of the Act relating to “source of source” introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective and applicable only from AY 2013–14 onwards. Accordingly, for the year under consideration, the assessee was not required to explain the source of the source. Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

35,77,52,226/- from any of the sellers of power. It was a submission that the said addition itself was not called for much less under Section 37(1) or Section 68

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)

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee contended that the entire loan was received through banking channels out of the Overdraft (OD) facility enjoyed by M/s Grihsobha Interior Pvt. Ltd. with Allahabad Bank, Dhanbad Branch. The assessee furnished the following documents before the AO and the CIT(A) Loan confirmation, Certificate of incorporation and PAN of the lender, Sales

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

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

68 and as such no fault could be found with the order of the Tribunal which had endorsed the decision of Commissioner (Appeals). In Mahabir Prasad Prem Chand Jain v. ITO (1988) 40 Taxman 35 (Del- Trib )(Tax Mag), it was held that amounts found in the books of assessee were in existence much prior to the beginning

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

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

section 10(38) of the Act was genuine and justified and in no way can be held to be assessed in the hands of assessee’s husband Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh. Thus the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition substantively in the hands of her husband. Since the alleged LTCG is a genuine

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 taxmann.com 311 (Bangalore - Trib.) The Bangalore Tribunal has relied on the decision in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 381 117 (Del) and held that, "no TP adjustment can be made by deducing from the difference between AMP expenditure incurred by assessee-company and AMP expenditure of comparable entity, if there

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI vs. SHRI KAMAL BHUSHAN, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] I.T.(Ss)A. No. 1/Ran/2021 I.T.(Ss)A. No. 5/Ran/2019

section 68 which has been cross checked with the details submitted in the paper book and as such. It is also observed that the assessing officer at time of assessment has failed to look into the submissions of the appellant and for that matter give any categorical finding for making the addition as from the order of assessment

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

35,40,000\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\nPrior period exp. not exceeding Rs. 10 Lacs,\non estimate @ 50%- enhancement\nRepair expenses\nStripping Activity Adjustment\nR & D Expenses and Actuary Payment\nExpense u/s 35E\nInt. u/s 234A / 234B

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

section 234C of the Act. 35. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the record, we find that the interest u/s. 234B/C of the Act is to be charged on declared returned income and not on assessed income as per decision of the of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Ajay Prakash Verma

JAISWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 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 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

section 143(3) of the Act. While completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at ₹46,66,974 after adjusting carry forward business loss of ₹1,46,68,519. Further, additions aggregating to ₹1,93,35

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

35,40,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 97,77,17,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,68

DCIT CIRCLE-3, BOKARO vs. YAVVARI NARAYAN RAO, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2010-2011 Dcit, Circle-3, Bokaro Vs Shri Yavvari Narayan Rao, A-1, Sector Market-1, Ram Mandir, Sec-1, B.S.City-827001 Pan No. : Aajcs 7786 F Respondent (Appellant) . Revenue By :Shri A.K.Mohanty, Jcit Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)

68,370/- could not been paid fully but a sum of Rs. 35,77,253/- has been paid in F/Y- 2010-11 again a sum of Rs. 32,91,117/- has been paid in F/Y-2011-12. The practical difficulty to defer the payment is due to non release of the retention money of Rs. 41,74,148/- by the principal contractor

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\nis dismissed

35,40,000/-\nTotal Additions/Disallowances\n* 97,77,17,000/-\nThe penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately\ninitiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)\nof the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order\nimposed a penalty of ₹ 2,68

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

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

68,244 refers to: Serial No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Gratuity Payment 8,52,331 In the Income-tax Act, after section 43A, the following section shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of April, 1984, namely:-"43B. Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this

M/S JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., ,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

68,244 refers to: Serial No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Gratuity Payment 8,52,331 In the Income-tax Act, after section 43A, the following section shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of April, 1984, namely:-"43B. Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

35,40,000\n91,73,000\nDisputed\n57,14,34,000\nDisputed\n5,95,76,000\nM/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS Ltd.\nAssessee's Appeals-disputed Additions\nSI.\nHead\nΙ.Τ.Α. No.\nAY 2011-12\n169/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee\n39,98,32,440\n24,09,000\nAY 2012-13\n170/RAN/2017\nBy Assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

35,40,000\nProvisions Toward NCWA VIII\n2,13,49,00,000\n2,16,22,000\nMine Closure Expenses\n19,85,73,000\n1,21,53,000\nCSR Expenses - Welfare\nDisallowance of Prior Period Expenses\nPrior Period Expenses as per Note 32 of\nAnnual Report\n14,79,92,000\n2,21,98,000\n91,73,000\nPrior period