Search: penalty u/s 271

2 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Cochin21 Bangalore21 Delhi15 Jaipur11 Visakhapatnam11 Amritsar10 Chandigarh9 Mumbai9 Chennai6 Indore6 Varanasi6 Ahmedabad5 Lucknow5 Surat4 Pune3 Nagpur3 Rajkot2 Jodhpur2 Panaji1 Guwahati1 Patna1

Key Topics

Section 194C12 Section 201(1)4 Section 10(20)4 Section 10(46)4 Section 80P4 Section 102 Section 112 Deduction2 TDS2

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

ITA 114/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 11Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 80P

80P. Therefore, the payments made to them are subject to TDS under Section 194C. 5. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR