JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

TDS as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act. The appellant contended that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara is having exemption

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

TDS as per the provisions of section 1941A of the Act. The appellant contended that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara is having exemption

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

exempted which was duly received during superannuation. 4.1. The ld. AR argued and relied on the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Dr. P. Balasubramanianv.Chief Commissioner Income-tax (TDS

MADHAV UNIVERSITY,PINDWARA, SIROHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

Exemption under s. 11-Applicability of proviso to s. 2(15)-Hostels play an important role in the education and training of students-They provide residential opportunities to the students to continue the process of education-Concept of hostel is not only limited to place of residence, rather it is a human practical laboratory for development of students-Students

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: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

TDS, Udaipur Forest South Rajasthan-313001 Van Bhawan Parisar, In front of Mohta Park, Chetak Circle Udaipur, Rajasthan PAN NO: JDHD01240B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue

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, Udaipur Forest South Rajasthan-313001 Van Bhawan Parisar, In front of Mohta Park, Chetak Circle Udaipur, Rajasthan PAN NO: JDHD01240B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, C.A Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

exemption under section 11(1), one should go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. The same has to be taken on 'commercial' basis and it need not be the 'total income' as computed under the Income-tax Act. The sum which is spent and applied by the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS provisions as relatable to provisions u/s 194C of I.T. Act. Accordingly, relevant assessment order as applicable to the A.Y. 2017-18 is as under: “5. The above reply filed by the Deductor assessee has been considered. The Deductor assessee has not denied or questioned that he is not paying to VFPMCs. Section 194C of the Income

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS provisions as relatable to provisions u/s 194C of I.T. Act. Accordingly, relevant assessment order as applicable to the A.Y. 2017-18 is as under: “5. The above reply filed by the Deductor assessee has been considered. The Deductor assessee has not denied or questioned that he is not paying to VFPMCs. Section 194C of the Income

O.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR` vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

TDS on the incentive payments u/s 192 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld PCIT on this issue. 9. The next issue considered by Ld PCIT relates to the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld PCIT noticed that the assessee has made investment of Rs.47.00 lakhs, but did not make

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together