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

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

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

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:-

7 | P a g e provided that where any income in respect of which a person is liable as a representative assessee consists of profits of business, then tax shall be charged on the whole of the income, in respect of which such person is so liable at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, reading the aforesaid two phrases show that

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

2. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in upholding the contention of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Udaipur in invoking provisions of section 206C(6A)/206C(7

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

7 ITA 87/Jodh/2019_ Vamita Singh Vs ITO the hands of the assessee hence she was unable to comply with a notice under section 142(1). After knowing the fact and circumstances, the assessee had responded the notices. The authorized representative had attended the department and appellate proceedings and all demand was made NIL at quantum assessment. Certified copy of order

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS deducted under section 194Q,194H,194A and other sections. 2. ITA No. 45/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year 2023-24 That the Id. Dy. Director of Income-tax (CPC) has erred in completing the assessment at Rs. 7

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

Section 269T restricts repayment of loan, deposit or specified advance if the amount exceeds Rs 20000 or more. In the instant case there has not been any repayment of the nature specified above. There is rather advancement by the assessee hence the provision of sec. 269T are not trigerred. Issue 4 Non examination of unsecured loan from Shri Virendra Agarwal