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

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

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

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