MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

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

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

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

TDS) 11. Heard both the parties and purused the material available on record. Admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee is responsible for paying Rs 31,50,000/- being the consideration for his 1/4th share in the immoveable property and has actually paid Rs 31,50,000/- only, therefore, following our findings and directions contained in ITA No. 245/JODH/2019, there

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

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

TDS) 11. Heard both the parties and purused the material available on record. Admittedly and undisputedly, the assessee is responsible for paying Rs 31,50,000/- being the consideration for his 1/4th share in the immoveable property and has actually paid Rs 31,50,000/- only, therefore, following our findings and directions contained in ITA No. 245/JODH/2019, there

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 and 12. 6. Section 13(3) Transactions at Arm's Length Payments to trustee (rent) were per lease agreement, at market rate, with TDS deducted, and later waived in favour of university. 7. Distancing from ED Proceedings 7.1. ED matters relate solely to sponsoring trust's and are not related to the appellant. Madhav University is operationally and legally

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194IA of the Act. Accordingly, the AO treated the appellant as assessee in default u/s 201(1) for failure to deduct tax and also 4 Jai International, Udaipur charged interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The total tax of Rs. 47,037/- u/s 201(1) and interest Rs. 43,274/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act were

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: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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.

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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

11,08,290/- and paid total tax of Rs. 2,48,444/-. The Appellant is working as a commission agent (Kachha Arhatia) besides his own purchase/ sale of agricultural commodities. The turnover (sales) made on behalf of the arhatia is not included in the turnover of the Appellant (Kachha Arhatia) as per circular no. 452 dated March

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

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

11. Issue/Point No. 2: Ld. PCIT pointed out that at column No. 40 of the audit report, the amount of closing stock was mentioned at Rs. 4869765/- whereas in the balance sheet it is Rs. 4020156/-, thus according to ld. PCIT, the A.O. had not carried out the verification and examination of this issue. 12. In this regard, our attention

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

2,09,320/-. 3. The appellant has challenged sole and common issue regarding disallowance of the claim of TDS deducted on transaction of Kaccha Arahtia claimed to be allowable in the light of CBDT circular No. 452 dated 17/03/1986. 4. The Ld. Counsel Sh. P.M. Chopra for the appellant submitted at the outset, that the assessee's case is covered

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

11 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO 12. In our view, Section 273B of the Act clearly provides, inter alia, that penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act need not be imposed, if it is proved that there was a ‘reasonable cause’ for the said failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions of Section