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.

72,332/- under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

72,207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

72,207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

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 to be Interest Total default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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 to be Interest Total default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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 to be Interest Total default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

TDS are not genuine and this disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-(70% of 46,25,75,450/-) was included in estimated addition by applying N.P. rate of 10.32%, 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in deleting addition of Rs. 13,87,72,635/- made

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(3), thereafter on the same facts, it was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 which was finalized, again notice u/s 148 is issued on the same facts and without any new material and finalized the reassessment which is for adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Now, this Hon’ble Tribunal is to decide the how prolong this

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

72. Therefore, the entire withdrawal of TDS is arbitrary and the ld. AO without considering the submission of the assessee, rejected the claim of TDS amount to Rs.4,92,990/- and thereafter the order u/s 154 was passed. The ld. AR further argued that the ld. AO wrongly passed the order u/s 154 for withdrawing the TDS of the assessee

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

72,630/ - on 31.10.2015 in the preceding year. He pleaded that the\nassessment order may be restored.\n5.2 The Ld. AR reiterated the submission made before the Id. NFAC and rely\non the impugned order. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee derived income not\nonly in this year but in preceding' and succeeding years as well. The cash deposits\nmade

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

72% of cost. 5.2. The appellant rely upon the following judicial decisions: Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC): "The next question that arises is as to what is the meaning of the expression "activity for profit". Every trust or institution must have a purpose for which it is established and every purpose

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,53,00,090/- making the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by giving relief, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order