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 Act. The letters sent by the Assessing Officer were returned unserved. Once the letters issued by the Assessing Officer returned unserved, it was the duty of the assessee to comply the notice but he could not do so. Further the AR of the assessee has produced bank statements before the Tribunal only for a short

BISHNU TRANSPORT COMPANY,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

65,350. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice received unsecured loans amounting to ₹30,00,000, the genuineness of which was doubted. In response to the notice, the assessee complied with the proceedings and the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act determining total income

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

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

65,97,523/-. Out of the said purchase, the purchase from 15 parties amounting to Rs.83,44,822/- and the seller could not be produced in assessment, hence the A.O. disallowed the entire purchase and added Rs.83,44,822/-. In appeal, before the Id. CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata the appellant submitted that it maintains stock book inventorised the purchase

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

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

65,97,523/-. Out of the said purchase, the purchase from 15 parties amounting to Rs.83,44,822/- and the seller could not be produced in assessment, hence the A.O. disallowed the entire purchase and added Rs.83,44,822/-. In appeal, before the Id. CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata the appellant submitted that it maintains stock book inventorised the purchase

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

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

65,97,523/-. Out of the said purchase, the purchase from 15 parties amounting to Rs.83,44,822/- and the seller could not be produced in assessment, hence the A.O. disallowed the entire purchase and added Rs.83,44,822/-. In appeal, before the Id. CIT(A)-XIX, Kolkata the appellant submitted that it maintains stock book inventorised the purchase

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR01 , RANCHI

65,42,00,000\n68,11,00,000\n68,41,00,000 63,00,00,000\n11\nProvision for NCWA\n2,89,76,00,000\n12\nExecutive Pay Rivision\n12,86,00,000\n1,36,26,00,000\n13\nSiding Maintenance Expenses\n22,87,00,000\n21,00,000\n23,22,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n14\nMiscellaneous Expenses

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

65,77,93,000\n57,14,34,000\n5,95,76,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\nM/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS Ltd.\nAssessee's Appeals-disputed Additions\nSI.\nHead\nΙ.Τ.Α.\nNo.\nAY 2011-12\nAY 2012-13\nAY 2013-14\nAY 2014-15\nAY 2015-16\nLease Rent/ Depreciation Forest Land\nLand & Crop Compensation\nCredit of Dividend Distribution Tax\nRehabilitation

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)

65,500/- 3. 2014-15 Do 5,68,84,000/- 4. Total 11,60,00,000/- It is therefore clear that the objection of assessee is not tenable as the disclosure is related to only one assessee i.e. Padam Kr. Jain. It is important to mention here that the amount of disclosure is not in round figure, which itself clarifies

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD 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 Sahayd.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 M/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

65,86,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. 3. Provisions for 125,10,67,000/- Whether ascertained Executive Salary during the year. However, revision allowed during A.Y. 2010- 11 (para "h" above) Total Rs. 152,68,26,000/- As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without

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 is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.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 M/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

65,86,000/- Whether of enduring Compensation nature i.e. Capital or of revenue nature. 3. Provisions for 125,10,67,000/- Whether ascertained Executive Salary during the year. However, revision allowed during A.Y. 2010- 11 (para "h" above) Total Rs. 152,68,26,000/- As such the penalty imposed for inaccurate particulars is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis, without

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

65,16,961.00 11,73,87,499.00 4,91,29,462.00 2016-17 29,71,64,279.00 23,13,95,671.00 6,57,68,608.00 2017-18 6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity

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

65,16,961.00 11,73,87,499.00 4,91,29,462.00 2016-17 29,71,64,279.00 23,13,95,671.00 6,57,68,608.00 2017-18 6,84,08,367.00 4,24,21,613.00 2,59,86,754.00 Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary stated that while making payments to various transporters, no TDS has been deducted barring a few entity

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 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

65,00,000/- Sports Recreation (iv) Environmental Expenditure ₹ 3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances

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

65,00,000/- Sports Recreation (iv) Environmental Expenditure ₹ 3,06,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,05,13,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 51,68,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) Depreciation on Lease Hold Land ₹ 8,74,00,000/- (ix) CSR Expenses ₹ 15,52,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances

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

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

65,42,00,000\n68,11,00,000\n68,41,00,000 63,00,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n2,89,76,00,000\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n12,86,00,000\n1,36,26,00,000\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n22,87,00,000\n21,00,000\n23,22,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

65,42,00,000\n68,11,00,000\n68,41,00,000\n63,00,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n2,89,76,00,000\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n12,86,00,000\n1,36,26,00,000\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n22,87,00,000\n21,00,000\n23,22,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses

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

65,42,00,000\n68,11,00,000\n68,41,00,000 63,00,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n2,89,76,00,000\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n12,86,00,000\n1,36,26,00,000\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n22,87,00,000\n21,00,000\n23,22,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

65,42,00,000\n68,11,00,000\n68,41,00,000 63,00,00,000\n11 Provision for NCWA\n2,89,76,00,000\n12 Executive Pay Rivision\n12,86,00,000\n1,36,26,00,000\n13 Siding Maintenance Expenses\n22,87,00,000\n21,00,000\n23,22,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n14 Miscellaneous Expenses