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 7

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 7

ACIT, CHITTORGARH vs. M/S.THE BANSWARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 194C and the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad dt.14.03.2014 in appeal no.1722/Ahd/2010 in the case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. GAIL (India) Ltd. It is held that the appellant rightly deducted TDS on the payment of Rs. 3,86,244/- for hire of vehicles at the rate prescribed u/s 194C of the Act and therefore disallowance of Rs.3

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 as per section 194C of the Act on payment made to VFPMCVs, the AO has correctly levied the liabilities u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax, the total demand of Rs. 40,51,180/- raised on this account is confirmed. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue are dismissed

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 amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

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 amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

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 amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

TDS for any other reason or that he was covered under any other provisions so as not to be liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). It is true that under proviso to sec 201 and second proviso to 40(a) (ia), no disallowance is called for if the appellant had produced relevant certificate in compliance of proviso

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

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

TDS is liable to be deducted. Therefore, disallowance of interest paid of Rs.4,46,546/- is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the 100% of expense which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly