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

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x). 3.7 The assessee was in receipt of unsecured loan of Rs.25 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Inox Buildcon Private Limited which was one of the share-applicant and for which addition u/s 68 was already made by Ld. AO. Accordingly, the said loan as well as interest paid therefore aggregating to Rs.25.24

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(b) for non compliance with the statutory notices are also being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), Bikaner on 06.04.2015, as seen from the copy of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] upheld the addition vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed under section

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

section 115BBE. 2. It is also noted that this income of the assessee would not have been discovered unless an action u/s 133A of the IT Act, 11 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT 1961 was conducted. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)© is hereby initiated for concealing true income on the amount of Rs. 43,00,935/- being undisclosed

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36,65,110/-.\nIf some shares were purchased @ 15.93 per share, some other shares may have been\npurchased on higher rate as well as some on lower rate. Some shares were sold at lower\nrate and some on higher rate. Shares were purchased and sold on different dates on\ndifferent rates. When the AO has total purchase and sale price