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

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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.

TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358- 360/JP/2023), where it was held that payments to VFPMCs are not contract payments under Section 194C. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue in appeal before us. 3

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)

TDS Ajmer vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No. 358- 360/JP/2023), where it was held that payments to VFPMCs are not contract payments under Section 194C. 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue in appeal before us. 3

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

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same

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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that

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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that

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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that