MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

1) of the I.T. Act 1961 an assessee can't be treated in default and TDS statement can't be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fee u/s 234E. Whereas non-payment of self assessment tax and interest alongwith the return u/s 139 treats an Income Tax Return defective u/s 139(9). This clearly shows that provision

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

iii) deemed as notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Under the amendment, similar position was given to the processing of TCS statements. In other words, the Legislature recognizes that a deductor who has filed his statement of tax deducted at source, which in turn, has been processed by the Assessing Officer and intimation is generated under which

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Now we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA NO. 119/JODH/2020 : 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Contractorship, trading of ready mix concrete (RMC) and allied activities. The assessee e-filed its return of income

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:-

iii) of the Act and further not justified treating the surplus of Rs. 2,11,32,268/- as income from business and profession. The addition made on this account is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the appellant regarding these issues are allowed.” 10. The Revenue has not rebutted the finding of Ld.CIT(A) that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

iii. As per the clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275, the order imposing penalty ought to have been passed as under, whichever period expires later : Provision Our submission After the expiry of the financial The ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 271E year in which the proceedings, in vide assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. the course of which

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

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. 1.14. In relation to the various issues raised by the Id. PCIT, our submissions are as under

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

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

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 (1) shall be made where the consideration

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

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

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 (1) shall be made where the consideration

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