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

25, 2023, declaring total income of Rs.\n11,08,290/- and paid total tax of Rs. 2,48,444/-. The Appellant is working as a\ncommission agent (Kachha Arhatia) besides his own purchase/ sale of agricultural\ncommodities. The turnover (sales) made on behalf of the arhatia is not included in\nthe turnover of the Appellant (Kachha Arhatia) as per circular

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “28. That apart, there are a slew of decisions of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, wherein in the context of section 10

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

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

TDS are not genuine and this disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-(70% of 46,25,75,450/-) was included in estimated addition by applying N.P. rate of 10.32%, 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in deleting addition of Rs. 13,87,72,635/- made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue are allowed.” 5.1 Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

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

TDS without waiting for disposal of first appeal levied penalty u/s 271CA of Rs. 531,158/- for default in TCS. Aggrieved by that penalty order, the appellant ha preferred an appeal before CIT(A) 25-11-2021, which was dismissed by CIT(A) NFAC for non attendance on 09-09-2022. 3. So, the appellant is in appeal before this

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

25 to 29 Powers of inspection, inquiries, and directions by the State Government - Section 32 2.6. The Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 governs Public Trusts established for charitable purposes, which are typically voluntary organizations like trust, society or companies. These organization are therefore required to be registered under a Statute of the 5 Government. But where the creation

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

10 E Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur 342001, Rajasthan [PAN: AOOPS6234G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (W/S) Respondent by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated

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:-

10,84,776/- and addition of Rs. 19,33,611/- on account of disallowance of provisions of gratuity. The appellant also submitted that it is settled law that the profit and loss account should be prepared on commercial principles and not under the Income Tax Act. The 14 | P a g e appellant relied on the decision

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

25,000 on 20.04.2013 and Rs. 15,43,000/- on 30.04.2013. The confirmation of auction of the plot in favour of appellant was done on 22.05.2013 by a written confirmation letter issued by the UIT, Udaipur and the appellant was asked to deposit the remaining amount within 30 days from the date of confirmation of the auction. The appellant paid

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

TDS has been deducted on interest paid to unsecured loans. ii) The A.O. has appraised the claim of interest paid on term loan, O.D. limit and unsecured loans after satisfying himself that these loans are for the purpose of warehousing activities of the assessee business. iii) While framing the assessment order learned A.O. has reviewed the reason for investment

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

25 of the same statement he admitted that page no. 1 to 5 of exhibit 7 is operational data. During his statements in search, he or any other director of the assessee company never challenges the authenticity of the seized paper. In the seized paper gross revenue of FY 2008-09 to FY 2011-12 is clearly mentioned

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

25 of the same statement he admitted that page no. 1 to 5 of exhibit 7 is operational data. During his statements in search, he or any other director of the assessee company never challenges the authenticity of the seized paper. In the seized paper gross revenue of FY 2008-09 to FY 2011-12 is clearly mentioned

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

25 of the same statement he admitted that page no. 1 to 5 of exhibit 7 is operational data. During his statements in search, he or any other director of the assessee company never challenges the authenticity of the seized paper. In the seized paper gross revenue of FY 2008-09 to FY 2011-12 is clearly mentioned