MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E of the IT Act, 1961. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders

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

1,86,084/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on\nthe ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were\nshown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section\n194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has deducted\nTDS under

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:-

section 11(1), one should go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. The same has to be taken on 'commercial' basis and it need not be the 'total income' as computed under the Income-tax Act. The sum which is spent and applied by the assessee for charitable

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under: 5. Decision: I have carefully considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order

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

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

1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals

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

1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals

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

1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals

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

1 to 10 does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs each. Therefore no deduction under section 1941A of the Income Tax Act need be made either." M/s Abdul Rashid & Ors vs. DCIT TDS Thus the ratio laid down by the honorable Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the appellant's case. Hence the order passed by the CIT Appeals

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

4. Manav Bharti University 5. Madhav University, Pindwara, Abu Road, Rajasthan 6. Jagmal Singh S/o Sh. Bharat Singh 7. Axis Bank, Abu Road As submitted by trustee of Manav Bharti Foundation, the appeal against the same is pending before the Court No. 1, Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi. On perusal of above, it is noticed that Madhav University, the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

4 years from the end of the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

4 years from the end of the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

4 years from the end of the financial year under consideration. Accordingly, Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

1,21,141/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section 194Q of the Income Tax Act. It is contended by the Ld. AR that Buyer has ducted TDS under