MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

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

e) the amount of refund due to the deductor in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor.” 21. As per newly substituted clause (c) w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fees, if any, is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. However, under the earlier clause (c), there

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 Sections. Therefore, there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. 24 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT 12. After analyzing the totality of facts and circumstances and after evaluating the documents placed on record and the order passed by the A.O., we are of the view that

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

E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 02/12/2019 for A.Y. 2017-18, wherein the Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts (independently & severally) in granting relief to the assessee. 2

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days in filing

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days in filing

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated 05.10.2021 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively. 2. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 16 days in filing

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

22 /09/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.10.2021 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

E R PER: BENCH These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur dated 23/10/2018 for the AY. 2013-14 & 2014- 15 respectively. 2. The hearing of the appeals was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Since common issues are involved

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

E R PER: BENCH These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur dated 23/10/2018 for the AY. 2013-14 & 2014- 15 respectively. 2. The hearing of the appeals was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Since common issues are involved

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Udaipur dated 22-03-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 2 ITA 253/JODH/2016 ACIT, CIRCLE-CHITTORGARH VS BANSWARA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ‘’1. Whether on the facts

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 23.09.2022 which in turn arise from the order dated 05.12.2019, 06.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

E R PER BENCH These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue which are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 23.09.2022 which in turn arise from the order dated 05.12.2019, 06.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A