MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

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

b) there is no merit in the claim of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act before insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, drew our attention

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

B) read with New Noble Education Society. ii. Past exemptions under Sections 10/11/12-contradiction with current application under 12AB. alleging iii. Surplus generation- Asserting profit motive. iv. Hostel fee receipts-Treating them as commercial activityrequiring separate books., v. Transactions with persons u/s 13(3)- alleging personal benefit/diversion. vi. Linkage with Enforcement Directorate proceedings- against the sponsoring body imputing lack of genuineness

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

5 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.” (2) No deduction under sub-section

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

5 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon.” (2) No deduction under sub-section

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

TDS has all ready been deducted and apart from this there is no other source of income of the assessee. Hence, there could not be any intention upon the assessee for skipping the service of notices. It was proved that there was ‘reasonable cause’ for the assessee in failure to comply with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b

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

b) The sale price due to petitioners 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

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

b) The sale price due to petitioners 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

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

b) The sale price due to petitioners 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

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

b) The sale price due to petitioners 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

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.”

b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee, (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to him under

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building; 27[(c) "stamp duty value" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (f) of the Explanation to clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 56.] It is also evident that the assessee has made the payment

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

b) which relates to Rental Income. The rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly

ITO (TDS), BHILWARA vs. M/S.HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad386/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs M/S. Hadpawat Enterprises The Ito (Tds) Bhilwara (P) Ltd.40-A, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Jdhh 00781 E

b) …. (c) …. (d) …. (e) …. (f) …. (g) …. (h) …. (i) …. (j)`.. (k) to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in sub-section (4) of Section 200 or the proviso to Sub0section (3) of Section206© (l).. (m)… he shall pay, by way of penalty a sum (of one hundred rupee) for every day during

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

b) of sub-section (1) 11 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. of section 275 is not applicable in the present case, therefore, this clause is applicable. Conclusion: Period of limitation for imposing penalty shall be calculated in view of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case