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

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

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)

48,64,780/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were duly issued. The assessee produced books of account, bank statements, and other evidences. The Assessing Officer, however, made additions under Sections 68

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

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

48 ITR 59 considered the ambit of a deeming provision and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. In CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. (1985)155ITR 711 (se) the same view was reiterated by holding that the "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must

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

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 its scope and connotation elsewhere

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)

48,780/- and made addition of Rs.9,61,984/- on account of undisclosed receipts or income, Rs.2,43,236/- on account of income from other sources, Rs.24,318/- u/s.43B of the Act and Rs.11,10,000/- on account of unsecured loan, respectively. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

section 68 of the Act; I.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd vi. Evidence in form of sale bill, investments list, Bank A/c details, Name, address, PAN of 8 entities from whom Amarendra Financial Pvt. Ltd. received money 5.2 He stated that from the above documents, it is clear that the assessee as well as the share applicant

RAM KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 189/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ram Kumar,…………………………………………..Appellant C/O. Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta, Gayatri Niwas, Ekta Colony, Majhi Tola, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013, Jharkhand [Pan:Anspk0996Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle, Office Road, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

48,610/- on 04.10.2018. A survey operation was conducted in the case of assessee under section 133A of the Income Tax Act by the ITO, Ward-3(3), Jamshedpur in the business premises on 28.02.2018. During the course of survey proceedings, documents vide Identification Marks RK-01 to RK-04 were impounded. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny

ACIT CIR-3 (1), DEVGHAR vs. M/S DEOGHAR JAMTARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , DEOGHAR

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

48) of Income Tax Act 1961 by Government of India. These will be taxed as per rate to be specified in the year of maturity. Hence, addition of Interest of Rs.74,992/- is not required to be accounted for. The appellant bank is not required to take accrued Income as these Bonds are in the nature of Capital Assets, hence

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

48,884/-. ITA No. 17 & 18/Ran/2022 ITO Vs M/s Maa Chhinamastika Cement & Ispat (P) Ltd. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that during the course of the survey at the office premise of the assessee petitioner which has lone office at Hehal, Barkakana, Ramgarh, no details of payments made to each transporter towards transporting charges were

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

48,884/-. ITA No. 17 & 18/Ran/2022 ITO Vs M/s Maa Chhinamastika Cement & Ispat (P) Ltd. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that during the course of the survey at the office premise of the assessee petitioner which has lone office at Hehal, Barkakana, Ramgarh, no details of payments made to each transporter towards transporting charges were

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

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

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

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15\nStriping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16\nCSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

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

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,\n52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

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

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000\n4,80,45,00,000\n3,57,84,00,000\n2,52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000 4,80,45,00,000 3,57,84,00,000 2,52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

48,00,000\n37,21,00,000\n31,69,00,000\n15 Striping Activity Adjustment\n56,90,00,000\n69,52,00,000\n16 CSR Expenses\nTotal Rs.\n2,31,97,00,000\n4,80,45,00,000\n3,57,84,00,000\n2,52,68,00,000\n1,12,19,00,000\nGrand total of Disputes