ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 80IA of the Act, deduction market value of power supplied by assessee to steel division should be computed considering rate of power charged by State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to other industrial consumers. Ld counsel also drew our attention to para 10 of the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Graphite India Ltd (supra

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 80IA of the Act, deduction market value of power supplied by assessee to steel division should be computed considering rate of power charged by State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to other industrial consumers. Ld counsel also drew our attention to para 10 of the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Graphite India Ltd (supra

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 80IA of the Act, deduction market value of power supplied by assessee to steel division should be computed considering rate of power charged by State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to other industrial consumers. Ld counsel also drew our attention to para 10 of the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Graphite India Ltd (supra

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 80IA of the Act, deduction market value of power supplied by assessee to steel division should be computed considering rate of power charged by State Electricity Board for supply of electricity to other industrial consumers. Ld counsel also drew our attention to para 10 of the order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Graphite India Ltd (supra

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

transfer pricing adjustment exercise." ix. Vijai Electricals Limited [2013] 36 Taxman 386 (AAR) "The learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Dana Corpn., In re [2010] 321 ITR 178/186 Taxman 187 (MR-New Delhi) wherein it has been held as follows: Section 92 is not an independent charging provision. The expression 'income arising' in the opening words

TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing addition. Ground No.5.1 and 5.2 related to the disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act, both under the normal provisions of the Act as well as in respect of book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act. In regard to Ground No.6, it was the submission that this issue related to the incorrect payment of refund

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

10, 501 Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 43,89,499 Therefore, the claim of the assessee regarding long term capital gain was not accepted by assessing officer and assessing officer treated a sum of Rs.43,89,499/- as short term capital gain and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer

SRI NALIN RANJAN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-1(3), JSR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15

transfer of the capital asset.] From the plain reading of the section, it is clear that capital gain is chargeable in the year in which such conversion took place and capital gain is charged u/s.48 accordingly. In the instant case the conversion took place on 4.2.2010 as per the agreement entered into by and between developer and the assessee. Accordingly

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

price. (iv) For that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the Long Term Capital Gains as Short Term Capital Gain is bad in law as well as in facts and against the Principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be set aside. P a g e 2 | 17 ITA No.14 & 15/Ran/2018 Assessment

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

10, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Ranchi dated 31.08.2018 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 234 B and 234D, theseare consequential in nature. Consequently, additional grounds raised by the assessee stand disposed as per the above direction. 9. Now coming to the main appeal filed the assessee, Ground No.1 is general in nature and consequently not adjudicated. 10. In Ground No.2, the same has three limbs. In Ground No.2.2, most specifically Ground No.2.2.2

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

10,42,27,450/- received in lieu of allotment of flats has been brought forward from the books of preceeding year and does not pertains to the year under consideration and further submitted that during the aforesaid assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) all the aforesaid supporting documents were produced and duly verified by the Ld. AO and detailed enquiries were

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

price of the property at Rs. 45,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 9,70,500/- and registration and other charges at Rs. 7,39,500/-. The value taken by the ld. Assessing Officer was the value charged by the Government for Stamp Duty purposes. The appellant submitted before AO that the provisions of section

SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ACIT OR DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10 14. Payments were received in cash till Sept. 16 and registry was done on\n19.12.2016.\nMy\nmain\nsource\nof income is agricultural income, excluding\nagricultural income, does not exceed the basic exemption limit for filing income\nand total\nnet\nincome\n4.\ntax\nreturn. Copy of PAN enclosed as Annexure-2. Land ownership certicale for some larids\nin village Bardaha