Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Kohapur
High Court
16 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Kohapur
Date of order
16 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Kohapur, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4110 OF 2009
ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.813 OF 2006
Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli....Appellant.
Vs.
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-1, Kohapur....Respondent.
.....
Mr.Ajit M.Savagare i/b. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for the Appellant.Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
16[th] February, 2010.
P.C. :
The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of a conditional order for the removal of office objections. The conditional order was passed as far back as on 24[th] April 2007, whereas a Notice of Motion has been taken out on 19[th] November
2009. We have perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. We are of the view that in the interests of justice, delay should be condoned and the appeal should be restored to file,
subject, however, to the payment of costs, quantified at Rs.15,000/-. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), conditional on the applicant paying to the Respondent costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- within a period of four weeks from today.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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.