PARAS KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

SANTOSH KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

MANJU DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

SAMIR KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

SUNILA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C. C. , DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

AAKRITI SARAWGI,,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

SANGITA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

RAJESH BADRI PD. MODI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

KANTA DEVI SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

sections 68, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income under Section 139 of the Act. Secondly

M/S ANJENEYA ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CIRCELE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 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, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 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 “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 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 Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

68 are not applicable to the appellant". Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) treated the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A

SALUJA STEEL AND POWER PVT. LTD.,,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C, C., DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books

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

69A of the Act and for loan taken from her son, substantive addition of Rs.3,54,000/- made in the hands of Kamlesh Kumar Singh and on protective basis in the hands of assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee also claimed long-term capital gain from sale of equity shares of M/s. Yuma Vayapar Pvt. Limited

SANDEEP KUMAR SARAWGI,GIRIDIH vs. ACIT, C.C., DHANBAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysandeep Kumar Sarawgi, A.C.I.T., Sarawgi Sadan, Dumri Road, Central Circle, Vs. Giridih-815301 (Jharkhand) Dhanbad. Pan No. Aejps 2820 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 or 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D only a presumption has been drawn by the Assessing Officer and the provisions of section

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”).

68,519. Further, additions aggregating to ₹1,93,35,493 were made I.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. on account of unexplained money under section 69A

ITO WD-EXEMPTION, RANCHI vs. M/S INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT THROUGH EFFECTIVE APPROACH, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 100/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)..…………………………………………………………..Appellant Ward-Ranchi, 3Rd Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), 5, Main Road, Ranchi – 834 001. M/S. Integrated Development Through Effective Approach........................Respondent Ngo: Idea, C/O. Sri Sushil Kumar Jha, Vidya Vihar, New Nagar (Jaiprakash Nagar), Bariatu, Ranchi – 834 009. [Pan : Aaati 2578 K] C.O. No. 09/Ran/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 100/Ran/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Integrated Development Through Effective Approach............................Appellant Ngo: Idea, C/O. Sri Sushil Kumar Jha, Vidya Vihar, New Nagar (Jaiprakash Nagar), Bariatu, Ranchi – 834 009. [Pan : Aaati 2578 K] Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)..…………………………………………………………..Respondent Ward-Ranchi, 3Rd Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), 5, Main Road, Ranchi – 834 001. Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri P.K. Mondal, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order Per J Sudhakar Reddy, Am

69A of the Act, the A.O. mistakenly added the same u/s 68 of the Act and quoting a section

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 STEEL CITY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

68 ITD 407. 5 ITA Nos.183/Ran/15 29/Ran/16 & CO No. 21/Ran/17 15. In view of above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT-A on this issue is justified. Thus, ground no. 1 relating to unaccounted purchase and sale raised by the revenue in the appeal is dismissed. 16. Ground no. 2 is relating to deletion