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. 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. DCIT CIR01 , 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

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

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. 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

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

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,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

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.)

96,500/ - as being the amount lying under the head "Suspense Account" for which there was no specific claimant. 10. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing the followings:- “During the course of hearing, the detail of this account is filed as appellant has explained that there are unclaimed deposits lying for so many years. This unclaimed deposit

CCL ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-1 , RANCHI

96,00,000\n10,68,00,000\n31,69,00,000\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 Rs.\n24,95,15,79,326\n51. The first issue is in regard to Tax Free Bond u/s.14A

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.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

96,455/­ on account of capital gain ignoring the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assesse is a retired bank employee. Since no notice could be served upon him, he was not able to adduce evidences on his behalf. The appellant stated before AO that

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

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