[2025:RJ-JP:44487-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90/2025 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus The Deputy Conservator Of Forest South, Van Bhawan Parisar, In Front Of Mohta Park, Chetak Circle Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Parth Vashisth For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/11/2025 1. This is an appeal filed assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’) would have no application in cases where payments are made to VFPMCs which perform plantation and forestation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dealing the entire payments as there were contracts entered between the various departments of VFPMCs. 3. For the purpose, we notice that the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have taken into consideration the CBDT Circular No.502 dated 27.01.1988, which states that payments under [2025:RJ-JP:44487-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-90/2025] schemes to be executed without attracting the provisions of TDS in terms of Section 194C of the Act of 1961. The ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of ITO, TDS Ajmer Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (ITA No.358-360/JP/2023) held that the payments relating to the VFPMCs would not be treated as contract payments and therefore, Section 194C of the Act of 1961 would not be attracted. Thus, the law as settled, wherein no appeal has been filed before this Court, would apply to the present case. 4. We notice that the appeals filed against the further orders passed by the Tribunal were dismissed by this Court on the ground of valuation. 5. No further question of law is said to be made out. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/33