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

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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

8] It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation [2001] 248 ITR 1/ 15 | P a g e 116 Taxman 608 that deduction of twenty five per cent is to be allowable not on total income as computed under the Income-tax Act. Any amount or expenditure, which is application

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas\ngiven ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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.

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

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)

2 as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, are also not applicable on them. Hence by virtue of their creation they are not falling in any category whose income is subject

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

sections. 2. ITA No. 45/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year 2023-24 That the Id. Dy. Director of Income-tax (CPC) has erred in completing the assessment at Rs. 7,47.980/- against declared income of Rs. 2,09,320/-. 3. The appellant has challenged sole and common issue regarding disallowance of the claim of TDS deducted on transaction of Kaccha Arahtia claimed