PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

delay is, therefore, condoned. Since the appellants are either persons in whose favor permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, or in whose favor the permits were transferred later, they are undoubtedly aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We see no reason, therefore, to deny them leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) 11/2019 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30th October, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 564/2010, which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in FAO (OS) 11/2019 Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

11, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad preferred against the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2022 passed in PAN No. ANWPB0829K on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad. Between: The Prl. Commissioner of lncome Tax - Central,, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND Smt. Nagalakshmi Buchepalli,, C/o M.V. Prasad, Sanath and Rajasekhara, C.A 8-2-12018613, Krishna Sindhu

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

M/S UDASEE STAMPING PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, JAIPUR

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data