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 194Q for\nRs.37,438/- cannot be attributed to the appellant. On verification of Form\n26AS

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:-

37,350/- as on 31-03-2014 and also had shown dividend income of Rs. 1,656/- which was claimed exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO held that the assessee's case is covered under the provisions of sec. 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, treated the surplus of Rs. 2

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.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

AVINASH RAMPAL JAGETIYA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

TDS, Bhilwara for the assessment year 2014- 15. 2 Avinash Rampal Jagetiya, Bhilweara- AY: 2014-15 2. Sole issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of incorrect inference drawn for section 194IA for non-deduction of tax at source and considering assessee as assessee in default under Section 201 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case

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

2. In this ground, the appellant has challenged disallowance of expenses on which TDS was not made. This disallowance was made by the AO as there were certain expenses on which TDS was not made and the appellant himself had admitted this fact and made disallowance in his ITR. The stand of the appellant is that once income is assessed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons in the course

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

2. Details was submitted at the time of hearing for Asstt. Year 2013-14. 3. Copy of Ledger account from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 in support of Assets/Machinery sold is enclosed. 4. As per which it is clear that Advances were taken against the Sale of Assets & equipments & machinery. 5. Further Jurisdiction of Wagad Infraprojects Private Limited (WIPL) is also with