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

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections

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

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

HARDEV SINGH,GAJSINGHPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

KALU RAM SUSHIL KUMAR,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC BANGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMERPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMEPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

KULDEEP,GOLUWALA DISTT.HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

JAGDISH PRASAD AND SONS HUF,HANUMANGARH JN. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

RAJESH GOYAL,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. ITO WARD 1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

VIMLA DEVI,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad and ITO Ward – 1 AADHJ 24 Sons HUF Hanumangarh 3054 L Prop. M/s Mohan Lal Bhanwar Lal, Shop No. 34A, Nai Dhan Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 5. 563/Jodh/2024 2022- Ganesh Singh Gulab DDIT, CPC AAAFG 23 Ji Bangaluru, ITO 7489 F New Mandi, Sumerpur Sumerpur - 306902 6. 564/Jodh/2024 2023- Ganesh Singh

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 143(3), thereafter on the same facts, it was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 which was finalized, again notice u/s 148 is issued on the same facts and without any new material and finalized the reassessment which is for adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Now, this Hon’ble Tribunal is to decide the how prolong this