MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

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

2) Act 2009, inserted sec. 200A in the Act, which prescribed for furnishing of TDS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor. It further took note that however, as sec. 234E of the Act was inserted after the insertion of sec. 200A in the Act, the existing provisions of sec. 200A

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

7. We find that similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in subsequent decision in case of Vinod Soni vs. ITO, TDS (supra) where it was held that section 194-IA(1) is applicable on any person being a transferee, so section 194-IA(2

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

7. We find that similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in subsequent decision in case of Vinod Soni vs. ITO, TDS (supra) where it was held that section 194-IA(1) is applicable on any person being a transferee, so section 194-IA(2

ABDUL HAKIM,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 the question arises is what if the Property is held by joint co-owners. In case of joint owners, the threshold limit

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 the question arises is what if the Property is held by joint co-owners. In case of joint owners, the threshold limit

ABDUL KADIR,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 the question arises is what if the Property is held by joint co-owners. In case of joint owners, the threshold limit

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 the question arises is what if the Property is held by joint co-owners. In case of joint owners, the threshold limit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS), Udaipur. 2 Jai International, Udaipur 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Ground 1. That the appellate order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the CIT.( (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts also since the action of the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of section 194-1A and passing order

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.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

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 later waived in favour of university. 7. Distancing from ED Proceedings 7.1. ED matters relate solely to sponsoring trust's and are not related to the appellant. Madhav University is operationally and legally distinct. 7.2. No operational or financial involvement of Madhav University; burden is on Revenue to prove nexus (CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR 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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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

7 of the table it is submitted that these new head of immovable properties had come into existence by virtue of transfer from the old accounts. The background of agriculture land at khara bypass0.83 hectare and land at khara 3.56 hectare has already been deliberated upon in length at point no. 2 of this letter. These two are basically offset