Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Siemens Aktiengesellschaff
High Court
18 Jul 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Siemens Aktiengesellschaff
Date of order
18 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Siemens Aktiengesellschaff, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3627 OF 2010
ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 4828 OF 2010
Director of Income Tax (IT)-I, Mumbai
.. Applicant
Vs
M/s. Siemens Aktiengesellschaff.. Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Applicant
Mr. Rajiv Singh a/w Mr. Sameer Chitnis i/b M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co for the Respondent
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
P.C.:
DATE : 18 th JULY, 2011.
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out for seeking condonation of delay of 457 days in filing the Notice of Motion.delay of 457 days in filing the Notice of Motion.
2. Perusal of affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion shows that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. However, looking into the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, in our opinion, interest of justice would be met if the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs.that no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. However, looking into the substantial question of law involved in the appeal, in our opinion, interest of justice would be met if the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs.
3. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b) subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the applicant to the respondent within two weeks from the date of this order.
4. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.costs.
[ A.A. SAYED, 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.