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.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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

37,438/-, after examining the claim as well as availability of TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in the assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting documentary evidence before the A.O." 4. The Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated

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

37,438/-, after examining the claim as well as availability of TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in the assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting documentary evidence before the A.O." 4. The Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated

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

37,438/-, after examining the claim as\nwell as availability of TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in\nthe assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA\nof the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting\ndocumentary evidence before the A.O.\"\nThe Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated the submission

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 was not made and the appellant himself had admitted this fact and made disallowance in his ITR. The stand of the appellant is that once income is assessed on estimate basis, no separate disallowance should be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant has also quoted provisions of section 44AD of the Act in his support

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:-

37,350/- as on 31-03-2014 and also had shown dividend income of Rs. 1,656/- which was claimed exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO held that the assessee's case is covered under the provisions of sec. 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, treated the surplus

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

10,74,429 1. Amount Outstanding for Earlier Years Kamla Amba, Canal deposit. Dn. Dungarpur 2. Details was submitted at the time of hearing for the Asstt. Year 2013-14. 3. Amount was received earlier against deposits deducted in earlier years, wrongly the transfer entry was not passed in earlier year. (So the credit appeared) 4. Copy of Ledger account