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 of account

ADHUNIK AKSHAT UDYOG PVT. LTD.,,DUMKA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), DEOGHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in AY 2012–13. From the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2011, we find that the said sum was already reflected under the head “Share Application Money

KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 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 Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit and also disallowed ₹14,182 towards penal expenses. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), where the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained the addition of ₹2,00,00,000. 4. Dissatisfied with the order

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)

unexplained. Section 69A of the Act applies only where the assessee is found to be the owner of any money or valuable article not recorded in the books of account maintained by him. Here, in the present case of the assessee the investment is duly recorded and explained from the earlier year’s cash balance; hence, the provision

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

money as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal

KROSS LIMITED,ADITYAPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR

Accordingly, ITA No. 98/RAN/2025 is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) where appeal was dismissed on wrong facts.4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

money as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee went in appeal

M/S ANJENEYE ISPAT LTD.,SARAIKELA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.74/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 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, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 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 “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.08.2018 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 Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Pig Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,41,05,250, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1). During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Share Capital & Share Premium Aggregating To ₹3,00,00,000 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 148 Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Complete Details Of The Share Applicants, Including Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions. In Response, The Assessee Furnished Complete Details In Respect Of The Share Capital/Share Premium Received From The Following Parties:

unexplained and made an addition of Rs.2,70,00,000 under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, did not conduct any independent enquiry, nor were notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to the share applicants. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where

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”).

section 143(3) of the Act. While completing the reassessment, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at ₹46,66,974 after adjusting carry forward business loss of ₹1,46,68,519. 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

GOLDEN GOENKA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.11/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Rajgaj Traders Pvt. Ltd.)............................……….……Appellant 25A, S.P Mukherjee Road, 4Th Floor, Bhawanipore, Kol-25, [Pan: Aabcr7503F] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Jamshedpur..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kumar Pranab, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 4, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Cit(A)”], Dated 21.12.2018, Arising Out Of Assessment Framed Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, The Sum & Substance Of Which Is That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of ₹4,73,00,000 Made By The Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Under Section 68 Of The Act Towards Share Capital & Share Premium, Ignoring The Documentary Evidences Placed On Record & Without Conducting Any Independent Enquiry. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring Total Income Of ₹16,67,088. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the entire amount of ₹4.73 crores was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. Apart from the above, the AO also disallowed set-off of certain losses against capital gains and finally assessed the total income at ₹4,89,67,090 vide order dated 21.12.2018. 4. On appeal

ACIT CIRCLE-1, DHANBAD vs. SRI VIKASH AGARWAL, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

money is shown in the balance sheet as unsecured loan, however, it was actually a trade creditor. The appellant also produced the ledger of M/s Amar Steels in his books of account reflecting purchases on various dates and copy of purchase bills in respect of purchases from M/s Amar Steels and also the copy of transportation bills. The appellant further

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

unexplained money in the hands of Kamlesh Kumar Singh 4 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & ITA Nos. 53 & 54/RAN/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh and made a substantive addition under section 69A of the Act and for loan taken from her son, substantive addition of Rs.3,54,000/- made in the hands

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

VIKASH KUMAR TAPADIA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.235/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Kumar Tapadia….........................…...........................……….……Appellant Tapadia Compound, Chowk Bazar, Jugsalai (Jharkhand)-831006.. [Pan: Acnpt2711L] Vs. Ito, Jamshedpur……………………………….……........……...…..…..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 : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Arises From Order Dated 03.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter "The Act") By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Hereinafter "The Ld. Cit(A)]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In The Case Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was Involved In Certain Financial Transaction. However, Assessee Has Not Disclosed The Same In The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year. In View Of The Above Fact After Giving Opportunity As Per Section 148A & Obtaining Approval From The Competent Authority Or U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed On 30.03.2022. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return Of Income. However, In Compliance To The Notice, The Assessee Did Not Respond & The Ao View That Unexplained Loan U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs. 9,00,000/- Unexplained Money U/S 69C Of The Act, Rs. 60,44,241/- & Capital Gains Of Rs. 30,54,000/-

section 148A and obtaining approval from the competent authority or u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act requesting the assessee to file return of income. However, in compliance to the notice, the assessee did not respond and the AO view that unexplained loan u/s 68

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD vs. BINDHYAVASINI COMMERCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHANBAD

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle, Dhanbad.….……………............................……….……Appellant Vs. Bindhyavasini Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd….........……........……...…..…..Respondent House No.41, Premises Of Punj Kumar Singh, Near Suraksha Clinic, Hetli Bandh, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 828111. [Pan: Aaecb0160D] Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025

unexplained credit, Rs.60,48,903/- as rebate allowed to customer and sustained the additions in respect of Rs.1,89,100/- as sales promotion expenses and Rs.1,28,400/- as gift to retailers. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the revenue preferred the present appeal before this tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.240/Ran/2023 Bindhyavasini Commercial Services

ITO WARD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS&STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

money u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules by raising the legal issue of assessment order passed by the AO being null and void on the ground that approval u/s 151 was taken from JCIT whereas it was required to be taken from PCIT

ITO WD -2(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S OM DAYAL INGOTS &STEEL CO. PVT LTD , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, application u/s 27 filed by the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

money u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules by raising the legal issue of assessment order passed by the AO being null and void on the ground that approval u/s 151 was taken from JCIT whereas it was required to be taken from PCIT

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

unexplained money which was shown as donations in the Income & Expenditure A/c of the society. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in not appreciating the fact that instead of making additions u/s 69A of the Act, the A.O. mistakenly added the same u/s 68 of the Act and quoting a section

GAYATRI GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

money was received. However, the assessee failed to furnish complete details to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. In view of the same, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the credit appearing in its books of account and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount