MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

iii. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (61 Taxmann.com 70) (ITAT Amritsar) iv. Smt. G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (60 taxmann.com 312) (ITAT Chennai) v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

iii. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (61 Taxmann.com 70) (ITAT Amritsar) iv. Smt. G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (60 taxmann.com 312) (ITAT Chennai) v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

iii. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (61 Taxmann.com 70) (ITAT Amritsar) iv. Smt. G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (60 taxmann.com 312) (ITAT Chennai) v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

iii. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (61 Taxmann.com 70) (ITAT Amritsar) iv. Smt. G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (60 taxmann.com 312) (ITAT Chennai) v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

iii. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (61 Taxmann.com 70) (ITAT Amritsar) iv. Smt. G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (60 taxmann.com 312) (ITAT Chennai) v. Gajanan construction Vs. DCIT (ITAT) Pune. vi. Maharashtra Cricket Association Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed

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(20) of the Act and the said trust is within the meaning of section 196 of the Act and accordingly, not liable for interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 8.2 Further, the appellant

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(20) of the Act and the said trust is within the meaning of section 196 of the Act and accordingly, not liable for interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 8.2 Further, the appellant

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:-

iii) of the Act and further not justified treating the surplus of Rs. 2,11,32,268/- as income from business and profession. The addition made on this account is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the appellant regarding these issues are allowed.” 10. The Revenue has not rebutted the finding of Ld.CIT

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

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

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

Section 194A(3)(iii)(a), TDS is not required to be made from income credited or paid to a “ any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies

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

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 Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals is liable

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 Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals is liable

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 Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals is liable

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 Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals is liable

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

section 10(10AA) of the Act, I.T.A. No. 113/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2019-20 employees of several Universities, such as the Haryana Agricultural University and Mahatma Gandhi University, have been held to be holding civil posts under the State Government. The decisions are (i) Ram Kanwar Rana v. ITO [2016] 71 taxmann.com 54/159 ITD 431 (Delhi - Trib

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act, any income credited or paid to any banking company, to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies, has been excluded from applicability of section 194A of the Act. The approval granted by the RBI to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. makes it clear that it has been covered under the Banking Regulation