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:-

section 11(1), one should go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. The same has to be taken on 'commercial' basis and it need not be the 'total income' as computed under the Income-tax Act. The sum which is spent and applied by the assessee for charitable

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under: 5. Decision: I have carefully considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order

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

9, there is only one transaction in respect of this property and therefore section 194-IA is applicable. The appellant has contended that the property was owned jointly by four persons and purchased jointly by four persons therefore section 194-IA is not applicable. As per sub-section (2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall

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

9, there is only one transaction in respect of this property and therefore section 194-IA is applicable. The appellant has contended that the property was owned jointly by four persons and purchased jointly by four persons therefore section 194-IA is not applicable. As per sub-section (2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall

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

9, there is only one transaction in respect of this property and therefore section 194-IA is applicable. The appellant has contended that the property was owned jointly by four persons and purchased jointly by four persons therefore section 194-IA is not applicable. As per sub-section (2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall

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

9, there is only one transaction in respect of this property and therefore section 194-IA is applicable. The appellant has contended that the property was owned jointly by four persons and purchased jointly by four persons therefore section 194-IA is not applicable. As per sub-section (2) of section 194-IA, no deduction under sub-section (1) shall

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

1). If there is any mismatch in the TDS claim as per the return vis-a-vis the TDS statement filed by the deductor, the assessee ought to have been allowed due opportunity of being heard and furnish updated reconciled TDS statement by getting appropriate corrections carried out in the TDS statement issued in its name by the deductor

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

1). If there is any mismatch in the TDS claim as per the return vis-a-vis the TDS statement filed by the deductor, the assessee ought to have been allowed due opportunity of being heard and furnish updated reconciled TDS statement by getting appropriate corrections carried out in the TDS statement issued in its name by the deductor

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

9. The Id. CIT(E) had erred in observing that change in fee structure was made therefore it is violation of fee committee. h. The Id. CIT(E) has erred in observing that the appellant had made payments to rent and salary to specified persons therefore it is not eligible to registration. i. The Id. CIT(E) has erred

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a regular IT assessee. In this case the TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a regular IT assessee. In this case the TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

1. In this connection it is submitted that the applicant is a regular IT assessee. In this case the TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

1). If there is any mismatch in the TDS claim as per the return vis-a-vis the TDS statement filed by the deductor, the assessee ought to have been allowed due opportunity of being heard and furnish updated reconciled TDS statement by getting appropriate corrections carried out in the TDS statement issued in its name by the deductor