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

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.”

TDS statement, in terms of Section 272A (2)(k) of the Act. However, the statute made it clear that before imposing of such penalty, the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard. In terms of Section 273B

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

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

273B of the Act. Jai Prakash Suwalka vs. Addl. CIT 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) and Income tax Officer erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271CA without considering the contention of the appellant of non applicability of TCS provisions of section 206C(1) on consumer buyers of Mahua. 5. The appellant