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

83,166.05 for a quantity of 82,81,832.84 mega watts. The assessee had sold the entire power purchased for a total consideration of ₹ 3,274,81,81,206.28/-. The entire break up was shown in the notes to the accounts which reads as follows: P a g e 3 | 10 IT(SS)A 01/Ran/2025 & ITA 471/Ran/2025 JCIT Vs. Manikaran

RAMESH KESHRI,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD W2(3), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryramesh Keshri, I.T.O., Near Suzuki Showroom, Piska More, Ward 2(3), Vs. Ranchi-834005 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aftpk 1039 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

83,349/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed." 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that with regard to total addition, the trade discount was Rs. 36,52,199/- @ 36%, less Rs. 1,68,850/- (profit already shown by the assessee as per Section

MAA CHINNA CEMENT & ISPAT (P) LTD,HAZARIBAGH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiरोक आवेदन (S.A. No.01/Ran/2020 (Arising Out Ita No.203/Ran/2019) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:-2015-16

68,227/- 2. We find during the course of hearing that these entities are part of “Rungta” group only and this clinching fact has gone unrebetted from the Revenue side. Couple with this, there is further no quarrel that all the relevant notice(s) issued u/s 133(6) of the Act stood duly received / replied from these group entities’ side

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit of Rs.12,83,000/- completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 26.05.2023. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance by simply upholding

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 271 (1)(c)." 4. The contention of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeal ) that the assessee had claimed an unallowable standard deduction of Rs. 68,36,208/- is fully compensated by way of depreciation being allowed Rs. 2,31,19,350/-. So, the revenue is no way being put at loss or in other wards the assessee

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

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)

68,190/- plus Rs.1,05,28,110/-) at the time of assessment without considering supportive evidences thereof, which indicates that the admissibility of the expenditure during the year was not properly examined. As per the submission, the assessee has contended that during the assessment proceedings, the confirmation of M/s. Core Minerals and M/s. Rajat Minerals along with the relevant materials

CCL,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

68,000\n74,89,09,000\n13. The first issue is in regard to addition made on contractual expenses\nrelated to Kustore area (L.B.Singh). It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the\nissue was in regard to the contractual payments made to Shri LB Singh and\nhis brothers which has been disallowed by the AO on the ground that Shri

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure\nAllowability of (Welfare expenses of employees) - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of coal mining It claimed\nexpenses incurred towards welfare of of its employees like canteen,\nhostels, etc. business expenditure Commissioner disallowed same\non ground that said expenditures had not been properly explained\nand that assessee

DCIT CIR-1,, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

CCL,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

CCL,RNCHI vs. ACIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. CCL, RANCHI

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

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

Section 14A of the\nAct was in existence and the some disallowances were called for. It was\nsubmitted that the disallowance should be proportionate to the investment\nmade.\n33. In rejoinder, Id. AR submitted that the bonds were on account of\nsecuritization of the debts. It was the submission that in the earlier years\nthe Id.CIT(A) has held

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD vs. M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD , DHANBAD

68,000\n74,89,09,000\n13. The first issue is in regard to addition made on contractual expenses\nrelated to Kustore area (L.B.Singh). It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the\nissue was in regard to the contractual payments made to Shri LB Singh and\nhis brothers which has been disallowed by the AO on the ground that Shri