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

GAYATRI GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹37,44,600 was treated as unexplained cash credit and added

GAYATHRI GLOBAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD (1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹37,44,600 was treated as unexplained cash credit and added

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DHANBAD vs. M/S HIMANGSU MAHTO, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No.: 2/RAN/2019 C.O. No.: 1/RAN/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s.- Himangsu Mahato. Act. Ld. AO also added interest paid on the said unsecured loan of Rs. 41,233/-. 4. In the appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “3.2 The above facts

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

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

44,822/- made from different parties are entered in the stock register and put to the various stages of manufacturing process. The assessee also produced bills in respect of all purchase made from these 15 parties and finally the Id. CIT(A) has held as regards the purchase, it is seen that these were recorded in the stock register, their

M/S S.P.ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(5), JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

44,822/- made from different parties are entered in the stock register and put to the various stages of manufacturing process. The assessee also produced bills in respect of all purchase made from these 15 parties and finally the Id. CIT(A) has held as regards the purchase, it is seen that these were recorded in the stock register, their

M/S S.P ENTERPRISES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

44,822/- made from different parties are entered in the stock register and put to the various stages of manufacturing process. The assessee also produced bills in respect of all purchase made from these 15 parties and finally the Id. CIT(A) has held as regards the purchase, it is seen that these were recorded in the stock register, their

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)

44 A B of the Act. The A.O. is wrong in passing the order u/s 144 (exparte) because the assessee wade compliance day to day queries in course of hearing. Although the A. O. has observed (he assessee followed the Mercantile System of Accounting but it states that no books of accounts were produced which is a contradictory statement

VIKASH KUMAR TAPADIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.235/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Kumar Tapadia….........................…...........................……….……Appellant Tapadia Compound, Chowk Bazar, Jugsalai (Jharkhand)-831006.. [Pan: Acnpt2711L] Vs. Ito, Jamshedpur……………………………….……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 03.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter "The Act") By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter "The Ld. Cit(A)]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transaction. However, Assessee Has Not Disclosed The Same In The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year. In View Of The Above Fact After Giving Opportunity As Per Section 148A & Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Or U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed On 30.03.2022. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return Of Income. However, In Compliance To The Notice, The Assessee Did Not Respond & The Ao View That Unexplained Loan U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs. 9,00,000/- Unexplained Money U/S 69C Of The Act, Rs. 60,44,241/- & Capital Gains Of Rs. 30,54,000/-

section 148A and obtaining approval from the competent authority or u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act requesting the assessee to file return of income. However, in compliance to the notice, the assessee did not respond and the AO view that unexplained loan u/s 68

SHRIRAM MARKETING SERVICES,GIRIDIH vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 263 of the Act dated 26/12/2022, set aside the order of Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2021 on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry or investigation to ascertain the nature, source and genuineness of ₹ 2,68,72,976/- and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment on the issues discussed above because

ACIT CIR-1, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S AUTOPROFILE LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

44 and also on the basis of various presumptions, estimated the scrap generation by taking peak percentage of 32.59% as disclosed by the assessee in the month of December, 2009 and added Rs.2.55 crores as Concealed Income realized from sale of scraps. The case law as cited as well as relied on by Ld. AO is that “if method

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of\nthe Rules were applicable on the assessee and after giving a show\ncause computed the disallowance at Rs. 27,19,753/- comprising of\nRs. 9,11,753/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 17,32,000/- under Rule\n8D(2)(iii) of the Rules

SRI GAURAV PALRIWAL,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(3), RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

sections 1471148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 3. The above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable in above

SMT RENU PALRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 10 & 11/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13 & 2013-14) Sri Vishal Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Ishatvam, Flat No. 801, 8Th Floor, Central Circle-1 Vs. Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008. Ranchi. Pan No. Ahnpp 0913 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 12/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2012-13) Sri Gaurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Aiapp 8110 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 13/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Sri Saurav Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata. Ranchi. Pan No. Atcpp 9277 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 14/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Priti Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Flat No. 701, 7Th Floor, Ishatvam, Central Circle-1 Vs. Behind Kanke Petrol Pump, Kanke Ranchi. Road, Ranchi-834008. Pan No. Amdpp 5673 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue It(Ss)A No. 15/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2013-14) Smt. Renu Palriwal, A.C.I.T., Block No. 1, Flat No. 3C, Space Town Central Circle-1 Vs. Vip Road, Raghunathpur, Ranchi. Kolkata-700052 Pan No. Ajlpp 9129 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

sections 1471148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 3. The above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable in above