MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

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

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

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

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

TDS) Section 194IA of the Act and has wrongly held the assessee to be in default and raised demand of Rs. 31,500/- and Rs. 16

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

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

TDS) Section 194IA of the Act and has wrongly held the assessee to be in default and raised demand of Rs. 31,500/- and Rs. 16

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 default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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 default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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 default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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.”

16. We now come to the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A of the Act was amended with effect from 01.06 2015. We have noticed the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges is that prior to 01.07.2012, the Act contained a single provision in section

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

16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also

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

16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also

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

16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also

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

16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also

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

16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also