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
ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
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.
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P
1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs do not qualify as State Government
