City Mumbai v. M/S. Oman International Bank S.a.o.g
High Court
27 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
City Mumbai v. M/S. Oman International Bank S.a.o.g
Date of order
27 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In City Mumbai v. M/S. Oman International Bank S.a.o.g, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 817 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 396 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax
City Mumbai. .... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Oman International Bank S.A.O.G.
Mumbai. .... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs. P.P. Bhosale i/by
Pankaj Kapoor for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv Punakkar with Mr. Rajiv K. Pandey for
Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: AUGUST 27, 2007
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 27, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Considering the affidavit in support of the
motion and as the delay is less than 200 days and
considering the pendency in the Law Ministry, the
cause shown would amount to sufficient cause.
Hence, delay condoned. Motion made absolute in
terms of Prayer Clause (a). Office to register the
appeal.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue