INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

TDS is to be deducted or not on the EDC providing reasonable cause to the assessee not to deduct the TDS

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

TDS deducted against his own\nPAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s\n199

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that

BALDEV DASS LAKHOTIA,SRI BIJAYNAGAR vs. ITO, SURATGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

DARSHAN LAL KATHPAL HUF,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. AO, CPC (RNJ-W-(570((92) / ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted against his own PAN is dependent upon filing of TDS statement by the assessee as mandated u/s 199 and rule

MOHAN LAL MENARIA ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

deduction is allowable in the previous year in which TDS is deducted and paid, i.e in the Previous Year 2014-15, relevant

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS was deducted by the appellant. It is further observed that the AO has not disallowed the entire anaesthesia expenses

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS was deducted by the appellant. It is further observed that the AO has not disallowed the entire anaesthesia expenses