MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the act states that if the person is fails to deposit the tax after deducted, the amount of the tax together with the interest thereron shall be a charge upon all his assets. The section does not cover late fee, amount. It is clear intention of law not to cover / recover late fee if same is not deposited

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

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

8 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) “5.2 After perusing the Paper Book and the relevant provisions of law, we find that Section 194-IA(2

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

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

8 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) “5.2 After perusing the Paper Book and the relevant provisions of law, we find that Section 194-IA(2

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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

ITO (TDS), BHILWARA vs. M/S.HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad386/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs M/S. Hadpawat Enterprises The Ito (Tds) Bhilwara (P) Ltd.40-A, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Jdhh 00781 E

Section 272(A)(2) inserted by the Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012 holding that the order u/s 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act issued by the AO/Jt.CIT(TDS) on 8

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS), Udaipur. 2 Jai International, Udaipur 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Ground 1. That the appellate order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the CIT.( (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts also since the action of the Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of section 194-1A and passing order

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

8. 2,22,202 9. Land at Nokha 1... 85,038 10. Land & Building at Ratansagar Well 2,30,535 Land in JNV Colony (6A-38, 1/2 portion) 11. 17 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT 5,777 Plot at Ganganagar 1 (1800 Sq. Ft) 12. 5,777 Piot at Ganganagar 2

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

8 makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that it has ceased to exist solely for educational purposes and has become an institution for the purpose of making profit-in such case, the predominant object test must be applied-A distinction must be drawn between making of a surplus and the object of carrying on the institution

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed