MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act, and created demand for different quarters under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing the TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act, and created demand for different quarters under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing the TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act, and created demand for different quarters under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing the TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act, and created demand for different quarters under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing the TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

5. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer passed the orders under section 154 r.w.s 200A of the Act, and created demand for different quarters under section 234E of the Act for default in furnishing the TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also

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

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.

11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS under Section 194C. 5

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)

11 and 12 or as cooperative societies under Section 80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS under Section 194C. 5

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

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

5 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.” (2) No deduction under sub-section

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

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

5 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.” (2) No deduction under sub-section

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

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

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

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

ACIT (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S.MAHESH SIKSHAN SANSTHAN, JODHPUR

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.375/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-Circle (Exemption) M/S. Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan बनाम/ Room No.64, Aaykar Bhawan Umaid Hospital Road Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Vs. Rajasthan-342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6333-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were clearly attracted in this case. 3) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11 without appreciating the fact that Shree Maheshwari Samaj, the donee has been assessed as an AOP after denying benefit of section 11, during

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

5. On similar fact, recently the Coordinate Jodhpur Bench in the case of Ratnesh Garg Vs. ITO, Srinagar in ITA No. 589/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2022- 23) vide order dated 22.04.2025 has held as under: 7. Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that AO/CPC has not allowed the full claim of the TDS

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

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

TDS), Udaipur in invoking provisions of section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of Act on the sales of Maua on the sole basis of Rajasthan State Govt notification dated 27.10.2014. 3. That ld. CIT(A) also erred in holding the assessee in default for sale of Mahua to consumer buyers for non-collection of TCS of Rs. 5