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.

100% deduction on the same in view of the CBDT circular no 502 dated 27.01.1988. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 16/01/2024, wherein the CIT(A) deleted the tax demand of Rs. 3,45,72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201

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

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

10,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh. No penalty would be imposed if the tax is deposited with fee and interest and the statement is filed within one year of the due date. With addition to these two provisions prescribing fee and penalty respectively, clause (k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 are tallied with the ITR but gross receipt of the F. Y. 2010-11 and F. Y. 2011-12 there is suppression of gross revenue in ITR as compared to the seized paper to the extent of Rs. 22,81,645/- and Rs. 1,67,54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS deducted u/s.194A, (v) Rs.11281311 being cash deposited in banks accounts of assessee. 3.1 Assessee made its reply vide letter dated 21.11.2017 which is reproduced in the impugned order. After considering the submissions of 4 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 the assessee, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the additions as stated

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

10-84 shows that the assessee is engaged in charitable activities within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. On the issue of surplus generation, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen's Educational Society(supra) and American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute(supra) that mere surplus, if ploughed back into educational activities