KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), where the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000. 4. Dissatisfied with the order

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:

45,00,000 Singora Brothers Holding Pvt. Ltd. 20,00,000 Emkay Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000 Polson Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. 75,00,000 Sirodhi Home Products Pvt. Ltd. 70,00,000 Tajaswi Pvt. Ltd. 75,00,000 Uday Singh HUF 4,00,000 Ajit Singh HUF 3,00,000 The assessee submitted complete names and addresses

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

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

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

45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that without the payment being made by bearer cheque these goods could not have been procured and it would have hampered the supply of goods within the stipulated time. Therefore, the genuineness of the purchase has been accepted by the Id. CIT (Appeal) which has also

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

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

45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that without the payment being made by bearer cheque these goods could not have been procured and it would have hampered the supply of goods within the stipulated time. Therefore, the genuineness of the purchase has been accepted by the Id. CIT (Appeal) which has also

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

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

45,580/- and disallowed @ 20% thereon Rs.15,69,116/-. It is also made clear that without the payment being made by bearer cheque these goods could not have been procured and it would have hampered the supply of goods within the stipulated time. Therefore, the genuineness of the purchase has been accepted by the Id. CIT (Appeal) which has also

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

45 read with Section 48 which are integrally connected with each other, the income cannot be said to arise, Section 92 of the Act does not come to the aid of Revenue, even though it is an international transaction. The expression 'income' in Section 92 is not used in a sense wider than or different from

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

45,610/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following two issues (i) unsecured loans and (ii) income from house property. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the ACIT Vs Sri Vikash Agarwal audit report filed by the assessee that the assessee has taken unsecured loans of ₹ 1.00 crore from

INDIAN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,DEOGHAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3,, DEOGHAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 68 of the Act i.e. the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 5. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant has submitted paper book wherein it has been submitted as under: "As required

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , RANCHI vs. CCL LTD , RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n24\nM/s Central Coal Fields Ltd.\n51.\nThe first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical

CCL LTD ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,3\n9,326\n24\nM/s Central Coal Fields Ltd.\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,326\n51.\nThe first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals of the assessee

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes Rs.\n24,95,15,79,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A of the Act. This\nissue is identical to the issue decided in the appeals of the assessee

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

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 28/12/2018 by making addition of Rs. 68,36,208/- on the ground that an examination of Audited 'Rental Account' of the assessee shows that the Gross Annual Value, on which standard deduction was claimed, includes receipts from cinema amounting