MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 10/05/2019 of this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 492 to 500/Jodh/2018 & others in cases of Station Headquarters Jodhpur & Others Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 10/05/2019 of this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 492 to 500/Jodh/2018 & others in cases of Station Headquarters Jodhpur & Others Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 10/05/2019 of this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 492 to 500/Jodh/2018 & others in cases of Station Headquarters Jodhpur & Others Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 10/05/2019 of this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 492 to 500/Jodh/2018 & others in cases of Station Headquarters Jodhpur & Others Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 10/05/2019 of this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 492 to 500/Jodh/2018 & others in cases of Station Headquarters Jodhpur & Others Vs. ACIT CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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)

10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS

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.

10(46) of the Income Tax Act, nor are they registered as trusts under Sections 11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS

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 u/s. 10

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 u/s. 10

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

10 comes to their relief. Further, even they are not registered as Trust as per provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since these VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, provisions of section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they

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

10 comes to their relief. Further, even they are not registered as Trust as per provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since these VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, provisions of section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR 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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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

10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

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

10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

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

10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

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

10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

section 194A rather than 1941(b) which relates to Rental Income. The rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under