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 Act. 3. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the notice of the appeal was not served on the appellant/assessee, therefore, he did not appear and file an application for condonation of delay. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned

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

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