MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

1,074,429.00 11,823,624.00 - - Total (A) 88508618.00 6,43,39,915.82 SUNDRY CREDITORS(B) 259,101,790.79 303,940,262.61 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 Total (A+B) 347,610,408.79 36,82,80,178.43 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 9. As can be seen from the above tables, almost all sundry creditors were of earlier

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:-

section 11(1), one should go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. The same has to be taken on 'commercial' basis and it need not be the 'total income' as computed under the Income-tax Act. The sum which is spent and applied by the assessee for charitable

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

11 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. of section 275 is not applicable in the present case, therefore, this clause is applicable. Conclusion: Period of limitation for imposing penalty shall be calculated in view of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case. iii. As per the clause (c) of sub-section

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

11(4A) Violation of Income Tax Act Violation of any other law (provisions of section 12AB(1)()(B)) 06. Further 12AB (1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR 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

TDS deduction on transaction as Kaccha Arahtia. The appeal in ITA No. 572/Jodh/2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24 is taken as a lead case for discussion and adjudication of the issue. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant had e-filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on July 25, 2023, declaring total income

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

TDS deduction on transaction as Kaccha Arahtia. The appeal in ITA No. 572/Jodh/2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24 is taken as a lead case for discussion and adjudication of the issue. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant had e-filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on July 25, 2023, declaring total income

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

TDS deduction on transaction as Kaccha Arahtia. The appeal in ITA No. 572/Jodh/2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24 is taken as a lead case for discussion and adjudication of the issue. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant had e-filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on July 25, 2023, declaring total income

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the legality & validity of order passed by the Ld AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the apparent & real facts of the case in right

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Section 194IA was not applicable. Hence, we are of ITA No. 245 &246/JODH/2019 9 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) the considered view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus the same is deleted. As far as issue of charging interest is concerned

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Section 194IA was not applicable. Hence, we are of ITA No. 245 &246/JODH/2019 9 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) the considered view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus the same is deleted. As far as issue of charging interest is concerned

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 206C(1) and that the appellant has been rightly treated by the AO as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the relevant TCS amount of Rs.21,295/-. It is consequently held that the appellant has been rightly charged interest u/s 206C(7) of Rs.21,934/- in respect of the said default. These grounds of appeal

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 206C(1) and that the appellant has been rightly treated by the AO as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the relevant TCS amount of Rs.21,295/-. It is consequently held that the appellant has been rightly charged interest u/s 206C(7) of Rs.21,934/- in respect of the said default. These grounds of appeal

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 206C(1) and that the appellant has been rightly treated by the AO as deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the relevant TCS amount of Rs.21,295/-. It is consequently held that the appellant has been rightly charged interest u/s 206C(7) of Rs.21,934/- in respect of the said default. These grounds of appeal

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

TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name of recipient deducted 1,00,42,501/- 10,04,250/- 5,29,804/- 15,34,054/- Int. to NBFC u/s 194-A AU Small Finance Int. to NBFC 17,94,183/- 1,79,418/- 92,142/- 2,71,560/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services Int. to NBFC Bajaj