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

1\ninclusive of TDS under Section 194Q. Given the appellant's assertion of\nacting solely as an agent and not as a principal, with no declaration of sales\nproceeds in her ROI, any TDS attributed under Section 194Q cannot be\nclaimed or allowed.\n6.2.3 CBDT vide Instruction No. 5/2013 has laid down the procedure to verify\nthe TDS claim

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

1 inclusive of TDS under Section 194Q. Given the appellant's assertion of acting solely as an agent and not as a principal, with no declaration of sales proceeds in her ROI, any TDS attributed under Section 194Q cannot be claimed or allowed. 6.2.3 CBDT vide Instruction No. 5/2013 has laid down the procedure to verify the TDS claim

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

1 inclusive of TDS under Section 194Q. Given the appellant's assertion of acting solely as an agent and not as a principal, with no declaration of sales proceeds in her ROI, any TDS attributed under Section 194Q cannot be claimed or allowed. 6.2.3 CBDT vide Instruction No. 5/2013 has laid down the procedure to verify the TDS claim

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

37,56,32,712/- u/s 40(a)(ia), being 30% of the expenditure amounting to Rs 1,25,21,09,040/- on which TDS had not been deducted This disallowance being nearly 8.76% of the revenue, further addition to total income was pt justified. As discussed in Para- 5.6 above, the A. O has in fact not made any adjustments

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

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

1)/201(IA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 02.03.2021 passed by ITO, 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

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

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