MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

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

22 Under sub-section (2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub- section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing

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

TDS deducted, and in certain cases later waived. The revenue has not brought any contrary evidence to establish that undue benefit was conferred. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof, as held in CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349, SC). The objection of the Ld. CIT(E) regarding hostel fee receipts is also untenable. Hostel facilities are incidental

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

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

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

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

TDS on the payment of interest and apart from that, it was 17 ITA 25/Jodh/2021 Sunita Agarwal Vs PCIT also observed that Smt. Rekha Verma had filed her ITR during the year under consideration showing income of Rs. 2,68,662/-. 18. In this regard, after having gone through the documents placed on record and after hearing the parties

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

section 194A is not applicable. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0201 (Ahd.) (Trib.) has held that discounting charges are outside the 11 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making

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

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee