MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e. 01/06/2015 and once any provision of the Act had been applicable from a particular date then the requirement of the statute was to apply the said provision from the specific date. Hence in the TDS statement filed prior to 01/06/2015, late fees under section 234E of the Act could

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e. 01/06/2015 and once any provision of the Act had been applicable from a particular date then the requirement of the statute was to apply the said provision from the specific date. Hence in the TDS statement filed prior to 01/06/2015, late fees under section 234E of the Act could

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e. 01/06/2015 and once any provision of the Act had been applicable from a particular date then the requirement of the statute was to apply the said provision from the specific date. Hence in the TDS statement filed prior to 01/06/2015, late fees under section 234E of the Act could

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e. 01/06/2015 and once any provision of the Act had been applicable from a particular date then the requirement of the statute was to apply the said provision from the specific date. Hence in the TDS statement filed prior to 01/06/2015, late fees under section 234E of the Act could

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

c) to section 200A vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e. 01/06/2015 and once any provision of the Act had been applicable from a particular date then the requirement of the statute was to apply the said provision from the specific date. Hence in the TDS statement filed prior to 01/06/2015, late fees under section 234E of the Act could

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

1)(a) of the Act, then such appealable order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is further appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

c) f the Act. This is one of the strange cases where even if the debt itself is found to be non-genuine from the very inception, at least in terms of section 41(1) of the Act there is no cure for it. Be that as it may, insofar as the orders of the Revenue authorities are concerned

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.”

c), this situation also would be obviated. Even prior to 01.06.2015, it was always open for the Revenue to calculate fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) held that section 200A was not merely a regulatory provision, but was conferring substantive power on the authority. The Court

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

5 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. assessee relied High Court came to the the officer imposing penalty and following judgments conclusion that the the notice issued by officer of Delhi High Court: limitation prescribed u/s imposing penalty. 275(1)(c) of the Act, runs PCIT vs. Rishikesh from the date the AO sent Buildcon (P) Ltd proposal for initiation

ITO, TDS-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMBHAT, HUF, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

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

1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the in Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which

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

c. The appellant being separately granted status of University under the Act of State Government was a charitable institution and registration denied was bad in law and bad on facts, d. The Id. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was granted status of University by the Act of the State Government and separate registration under Rajasthan Public

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

C (Virtual hearing) Assessee By Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta- Adv. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 11/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 23/08/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

C (Virtual hearing) Assessee By Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta- Adv. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 11/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 23/08/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

C (Virtual hearing) Assessee By Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta- Adv. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 11/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 23/08/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)”] all dated

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

TDS), Udaipur. 4. In the written submission, assessee has relied on various case laws to put forth the point that late fee under section 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1.6.2015. 2 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is observed that the assessee has filed an appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against