M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-DR for adjournment

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)

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee contended that the entire loan was received through banking channels out of the Overdraft (OD) facility enjoyed by M/s Grihsobha Interior Pvt. Ltd. with Allahabad Bank, Dhanbad Branch. The assessee furnished the following documents before the AO and the CIT(A) Loan confirmation, Certificate of incorporation and PAN of the lender, Sales

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

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

75,36,565 2013-2014 3,64,11,096 • As can be seen from the above table, the quantum of sundry creditors is reducing year to year and there is no unusual trend during the FY relevant to the AY under consideration. Therefore, there is no valid justification for doubting the genuineness of the creditors. Rather, there was not material

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

SANTPURIA ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,GIRIDIH vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.142/Ran/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Santpuria Alloys Pvt. Ltd……………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Manjhladih, Giridih - 815301. [Pan: Aaics4215J] Vs. Acit, Central Range-2, Ranchi….……………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rahul Saboo, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

75,000/- had made addition u/s 68 of the Act holding that the assessee could not prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. However, in respect of another amount of Rs.51,00,000/- received from other 13 entities, the Assessing Officer held that the amount received from these entities was in violation of provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR vs. URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Uranium Corporation Of India Jamshedpur. Limited, Vs. Turamardie Mines, Sundar Nagar, East Singhbhum-832107 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacu 2207 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 before the assessing officer for grant of immunity from imposition of penalty as per the provisions of section 270AA of the I.T.Act, 1961 5. Other grounds, if any will be raised at the time of hearing." 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant company has filed its return of income declaring loss

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)

75,756/- of the previous year i.e. A/Y- 2009-10 is paid during (his year A/Y- 2010-11. 5 However (his year's liability of Rs. 68, 68,370/- could not been paid fully but a sum of Rs. 35,77,253/- has been paid in F/Y- 2010-11 again a sum of Rs. 32,91,117/- has been paid

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

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

Section 92 B runs counter to legal position explained in CIT v. EKL 8 Tata Cummins Vs DCIT Appliances Ltd. (supra) which required a TPO "to examine the 'international transaction' as he actually finds the same" vii. Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. DCII [2016] 68 taxmann.com 311 (Bangalore - Trib.) The Bangalore Tribunal has relied on the decision

MARS MERCANTILES PVT.LTD.,DHANBAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD, DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2 Mars Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2012-13. 3. Assessee has taken an additional ground vide its application dated 01.03.2023. The additional ground taken by the assessee reads as under: “1. For that the proceeding initiated u/s. 148 and the order of assessment passed u/s. 147/143

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)

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 that the disclosure is based on fact

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

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 as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce any documents evidence/proof like bills, vouchers

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

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 as these transporters were having less than ten vehicles/carriers, however, Shri Dinesh Kumar Choudhary could not produce any documents evidence/proof like bills, vouchers

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

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

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

75,11,86,674\n1,10,13,17,344 82,28,00,000 58,07,20,000\nGrand total Disputes Rs.\n13,13,47,37,752\n3.\nThe first issue is with regard to disallowance of Lease\nRent/Depreciation Forest Land expenses. It was submitted that the\nassessee in some years has paid and some years been treated as the\namortisation