MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column

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 deducted at source and old pending refunds of earlier year. Later, vide reply filed on 11.12.2019, the assessee submitted the "Claim" shown in the audited financials are related to claim filed against the parties for loss incurred also. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 18.12.2109, the assessee was again requested to explain the claim of Rs. 1

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

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

TDS, No further appeal was filed. Therefore provision of section 270A is not applicable here. Penalty provisions have been substantially amended from A.Y.2017-18 onwards. The said penalty provision u/s 270A is in force to replace section 27111) (C) of the IT act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claimed deduction so in this case no penalty

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.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

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

TDS. Hence, this expense is not allowable as per provision u/s 40(a)(ia). 6.4.5 I have examined the issue so raised. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings only after properly after properly appreciating and analyzing the evidences. The information on the foundation of which Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under section 147, was certain and constitutes sufficient and relevant

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

73,000/- by ignoring the fact that the huge cash in hand of Rs. 1,07,77,387/-\nshown by assessee on 31.10.2016 is abnormally high and is not commensurate\nwith the opening cash in hand of Rs.10,46, 141/- on 01.04.2016 and cash in hand\nof Rs.10,72,630/ - on 31.10.2015 in the preceding year. He pleaded that

SIDDHARTH AGARWAL,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blesiddharth Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of 28, Polo Ground, Income Tax, Cpc, Tds Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur Pan No. Akgpa 4183 N Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)] Udaipur – 2 Dated 10.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2015-16 Challenging Therein The Sustaining The Levy Of Fee U/S 234A Of The Act By The Ao By View Of Rectification Order Dated 12.06.2022 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 28,600/- & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- Totalling To Rs. 44,616/-, Although The Amended Law Was Not Applicable For The Year Under Consideration Because It Was Applicable Only With Effect From 01.06.2015. Asst. Year: 2015-16 2 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appellant Assessee Filed A Rectification Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Acit, Cpc-Tds, Vaishali Ghajiabad For Tds In Form 27Q For Financial Year 2014- 15 With Respect To Quarter 4, Subsequently Rectification Order Was Passed On 12.06.2020 Determining Late Filing Fee/Penalty Of Rs. 28,600/- U/S 234A & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- U/S 220 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Has Been Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). Ignoring The Fact That Ao Did Not Have Power To Change Fee U/S 234E While Processing Tds Returns & Hence In Absence Of Enabling Provisions, Levy Of Fee Could Not Be Deducted In The Course Of Intimation Issued U/S 200A Prior To 01.06.2015. The Ld. Ar Prayed For Deleting The Fee & Interest Levied By The Acit, Cpc.

73 taxman.com 252(Kar.) had laid down the proposition that the amendment to Section 200A is with effect from 01.06.2015 and applicable with prospective effect and hence it is not application for the period to 01.06.2015 and corresponding assessment years. 5. “Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. Vs. DCIT in the case