Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1 v. M/S.e.merck (India) Ltd
High Court
20 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1 v. M/S.e.merck (India) Ltd
Date of order
20 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1 v. M/S.e.merck (India) Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1256 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.657 OF 2007
Commissioner of Income-tax-1 ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.E.Merck (India) Ltd., ..Respondent
----
Mr.A.D.Kango & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.S.J.Mehta & Ms.A Vissanji for respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 20.02.2008
PC
1. This is a motion for condoning 787 days delay in
filing of the main appeal. A perusal of the
affidavit-in-support indicates that on 2.3.2005 the
file was sent to ministry of law for drafting of
appeal memo but the draft was ultimately prepared on
18.12.2006. In our view, the period of more than 1
year & 8 months for drafting appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable. Hence, cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence motion dismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.657 OF 2007
. As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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