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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

1,074,429.00 11,823,624.00 - - Total (A) 88508618.00 6,43,39,915.82 SUNDRY CREDITORS(B) 259,101,790.79 303,940,262.61 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 Total (A+B) 347,610,408.79 36,82,80,178.43 319,863,553.74 198,793,676.98 9. As can be seen from the above tables, almost all sundry creditors were of earlier

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

9 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. (c) In any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or, six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later

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:-

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 of income, is not to be considered for determining twenty five per cent

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

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

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

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

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

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

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised