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

section 2(15) of the Act. On the issue of surplus generation, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen's Educational Society(supra) and American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute(supra) that mere surplus, if ploughed back into educational activities, does not disqualify an educational institution from exemption. The assessee has demonstrated that during

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

15. 2. The only common dispute arising in these appeals relates to levy of fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statements for tax deducted at source (TDS

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

15. 2. The only common dispute arising in these appeals relates to levy of fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statements for tax deducted at source (TDS

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 Mahua on the sole basis of Rajasthan State Govt Notification dated 27-10-2014. 3. That Id. CIT(A) also erred in holding upholding the assessee in default for sale of Mahua to consumer buyers for non-collection

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

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)

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

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

MOHAN LAL MENARIA ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS on payment to Sundaram Finance Ltd on 31.03.2015. Since the due date specified in sub- section (1) of section 139 for filing the return of income for AY 2014- 15

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

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

TDS without waiting for disposal of first appeal levied penalty u/s 271CA of Rs. 531,158/- for default in TCS. Aggrieved by that penalty order, the appellant ha preferred an appeal before CIT(A) 25-11-2021, which was dismissed by CIT(A) NFAC for non attendance on 09-09-2022. 3. So, the appellant is in appeal before this

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

15-16. The grounds raised in all these\nappeals are common except difference in figures. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we\ndispose off these appeals by a consolidated order. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.\n63/Jodh/20120 as a lead case and the decision arrived therein will be applicable to all other\nappeals. The assessee has raised

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

15-16. The grounds raised in all these\nappeals are common except difference in figures. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we\ndispose off these appeals by a consolidated order. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.\n63/Jodh/20120 as a lead case and the decision arrived therein will be applicable to all other\nappeals. The assessee has raised

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

15-16. The grounds raised in all these\nappeals are common except difference in figures. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we\ndispose off these appeals by a consolidated order. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.\n63/Jodh/20120 as a lead case and the decision arrived therein will be applicable to all other\nappeals. The assessee has raised

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

15-16. The grounds raised in all these\nappeals are common except difference in figures. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we\ndispose off these appeals by a consolidated order. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No.\n63/Jodh/20120 as a lead case and the decision arrived therein will be applicable to all other\nappeals. The assessee has raised