ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

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

2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. Now M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

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

2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. Now M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS

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.”

TDS statement, in terms of Section 272A (2)(k) of the Act. However, the statute made it clear that before

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 201(1A) r.w.s 194IA of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur. 2 Jai International, Udaipur 2

ITO (TDS), BHILWARA vs. M/S.HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad386/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs M/S. Hadpawat Enterprises The Ito (Tds) Bhilwara (P) Ltd.40-A, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Jdhh 00781 E

TDS statement (s) within the time specified in sub-section (3) of Section 200 of I.T. Act, 1961 for F.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011-12) (Quarter-2nd) in contrary to proviso to proviso to sub-clause (k) of Section 272(A)(2

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

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

2,898/-. Consequently, TDS on this income totaling to Rsv 1,48,646/- warrants consideration. However, the appellant has omitted to report the sales in her ITR, contending that she operates solely as a middleman ("kachha adatiya"). Consequently, credit for the TDS under Section

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

2,898/-. Consequently, TDS on this income totaling to Rsv 1,48,646/- warrants consideration. However, the appellant has omitted to report the sales in her ITR, contending that she operates solely as a middleman ("kachha adatiya"). Consequently, credit for the TDS under Section

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

2,898/-.\nConsequently, TDS on this income totaling to Rsv 1,48,646/- warrants\nconsideration. However, the appellant has omitted to report the sales in her\nITR, contending that she operates solely as a middleman (\"kachha\adatiya\"). Consequently, credit for the TDS under Section

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.

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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)

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Id. Dy. Director of Income tax (CPC) has erred in disallowing the TDS amounting to Rs. 112921.00. That the Id. AO has further erred in allowing the TDS •in proportion to the turnover/receipts in Form 26AS in relation to TDS deducted under section

KHOJEMA ALI BOHRA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

sections 194A of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur. 2 Khojema Ali Bohra 2. The assessee has marched

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

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

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

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. THE LD CIT APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID TO BANKING FINANCE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND OF NON TDS. 2

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015