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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

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

section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the disallowance. 9.7 On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 9.8 We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material placed

JAGDISH PRASAD AND SONS HUF,HANUMANGARH JN. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

RAJESH GOYAL,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. ITO WARD 1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC BANGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMERPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

KALU RAM SUSHIL KUMAR,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

HARDEV SINGH,GAJSINGHPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

VIMLA DEVI,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

KULDEEP,GOLUWALA DISTT.HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMEPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

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