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

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\n12\nITA No. 572,595&596/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Year 2022&2023-24)\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench, Jodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, operating as a commission agent (Kachha Arhatia), filed an appeal challenging the disallowance of TDS credit. The AO/CPC disallowed a significant portion of the claimed TDS

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

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 is liable to be quashed being against the law and facts. 4. That the appellant

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

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 is liable to be quashed being against the law and facts. 4. That the appellant

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

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 is liable to be quashed being against the law and facts. 4. That the appellant

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

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 is liable to be quashed being against the law and facts. 4. That the appellant

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

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

TDS amount. Accordingly, fee under section 234E of the Act was charged. The assessee contested the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act by filing appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the appeals were dismissed. 5

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

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

TDS amount. Accordingly, fee under section 234E of the Act was charged. The assessee contested the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act by filing appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the appeals were dismissed. 5

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)

TDS under Section 194C. 5. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

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.

TDS under Section 194C. 5. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

TDS), Udaipur in invoking provisions of section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of Act on the sales of Maua on the sole basis of Rajasthan State Govt notification dated 27.10.2014. 3. That ld. CIT(A) also erred in holding the assessee in default for sale of Mahua to consumer buyers for non-collection of TCS of Rs. 5

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

sections. 2. ITA No. 45/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year 2023-24 That the Id. Dy. Director of Income-tax (CPC) has erred in completing the assessment at Rs. 7,47.980/- against declared income of Rs. 2,09,320/-. 3. The appellant has challenged sole and common issue regarding disallowance of the claim of TDS deducted on transaction of Kaccha Arahtia claimed

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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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

section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income

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

DARSHAN LAL KATHPAL HUF,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. AO, CPC (RNJ-W-(570((92) / ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

5. In the present case, the CPC while processing the Return of Income u/s 143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS to Rs. 6,957/- out of Rs. 40,088/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

5. In the present cases, the CPC while processing the Return of Income u/s 143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS by disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown