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

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

TDS), Udaipur. 4. In the written submission, assessee has relied on various case laws to put forth the point that late fee under section 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1.6.2015. 2 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is observed that the assessee has filed an appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against

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

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 Moreover, 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

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\ngiven ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

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 Moreover, 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

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

19,097/-, less by Rs. 57,56,57,561/-. It is seen from the financials for AY 2017-18 that revenue from operations which comprises of contract revenue (Rs. 2,46,73,49,728), sale of scraps (Rs. 26,15,34,005/-) and sale of trees (Rs. 1,04,26.739/-) is shown at Rs. 2

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

2 Deputy Conservator of Forest applicability of Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for “assessee not in default”. 4. Brief facts of the case involve, that the appellant was covered by a survey u/s 133A(2A) of I.T. Act on 17.10.2019 so as to verify whether the appellant as a deductor is deducting

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

2 Deputy Conservator of Forest applicability of Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for “assessee not in default”. 4. Brief facts of the case involve, that the appellant was covered by a survey u/s 133A(2A) of I.T. Act on 17.10.2019 so as to verify whether the appellant as a deductor is deducting

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) grosslyerred in holding the assessee "as assessee in default" and sustaining the demandof Rs. 1336475/- u/s 206C(6) & 206C(7). 3] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inholding that the entire sales made by the assessee

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) grosslyerred in holding the assessee "as assessee in default" and sustaining the demandof Rs. 1336475/- u/s 206C(6) & 206C(7). 3] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inholding that the entire sales made by the assessee

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) grosslyerred in holding the assessee "as assessee in default" and sustaining the demandof Rs. 1336475/- u/s 206C(6) & 206C(7). 3] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inholding that the entire sales made by the assessee

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

2,45,270/- by making some additions. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee in violation of provisions of section 269T of the IT Act, 1961 has repaid in cash loan amounting to Rs. 60,000/- to Shri Sanjay Vyas.The explanation furnished by the assessee in this respect was considered

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 2

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 2

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 2