MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that the TDS statements were filed and processed after 01/06/2015, therefore the late filing fees levied under section 234E of the Act were valid. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that this issue

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also state that if CIT is not satisfied has to pass order rejecting such application and also cancelling its earlier registration. Thus, it is clarified that applicant's provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.09.2023 is also

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

B) with respect to deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act are answered against the revenue.” Thus the Hon’ble High Court has held that addition under section 41(1) cannot be made simply by doubting the creditor or his creditworthiness or his identity. Further, no addition can be made simply because the creditors

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

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

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) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.'. For applicability of Section 194-IA following conditions need to be satisfied:  The payee must be a resident transferor of any immovable property (other than agricultural land).  The payment must be by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other

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) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.'. For applicability of Section 194-IA following conditions need to be satisfied:  The payee must be a resident transferor of any immovable property (other than agricultural land).  The payment must be by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other

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) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.'. For applicability of Section 194-IA following conditions need to be satisfied:  The payee must be a resident transferor of any immovable property (other than agricultural land).  The payment must be by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other

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) "immovable property" means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building.'. For applicability of Section 194-IA following conditions need to be satisfied:  The payee must be a resident transferor of any immovable property (other than agricultural land).  The payment must be by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other

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.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

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

B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur- 342001. PAN No. AANPD4947J Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue by Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 06.10.2025. Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025. DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: ORDER The Captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter referred

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

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has acquired an immoveable property which was jointly owned by Smt. Rashi Harneja and Smt. Ravindra Harneja. It is also an undisputed fact that though the total consideration was agreed at Rs 75,00,000, the assessee

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

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has acquired an immoveable property which was jointly owned by Smt. Rashi Harneja and Smt. Ravindra Harneja. It is also an undisputed fact that though the total consideration was agreed at Rs 75,00,000, the assessee

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

B) dated January 29,1997, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which states that no demand visuali2ed under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the office-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed