RAJASTHAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY vs. THE C I T , EXEMPTION,

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

Section 12AA of the Act was not available, as the exemption [2025:RJ-JP:10781-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-35/2021] was granted from 01.04.2017. The order of the CIT(E) was challenged before the tribunal accompanied by an application for condoning the delay

PR. COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MANOJ RATHI

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/48/2021) stands dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 We have elaborately heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel for the respondent/assessee. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit-in-reply, we find that the explanation given by the department is far from being

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SAINI

The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (For Short The "Itat") In The Online Portal Via E-Filing Mode, Against The Order Dated 27.7.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {For Short The "Cit (Appeals)"}. However, Thereafter, He Was Not

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was admitted for hearing on 22.4.2025 by formulating the following substantial question of law: - ““Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal barred by limitation holding that the appellant assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay, by recording a finding which is perverse

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 260A(24) of lT Act R/w. Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay

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

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

2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. 3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 4: Definitions: Digitally Signed