Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. Santosh Bora, Jj
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. Santosh Bora, Jj
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. Santosh Bora, Jj, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the notice of motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 900 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 900 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 900 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 573 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 573 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 573 OF 2008
The Commissioner of
Income Tax-14, Mumbai. .. Appellant.
vs.
Smt. Damayant K. Dalal. .. Respondent.
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant.
Ms. Aasifa Khan for Respondent.
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 499 days delay caused in filing the
Appeal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. The appeal has been filed challenging the
order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
2
dated 18.5.2006. The appeal does not even mention when
and on what date the approval was granted to file the
appeal.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for
delay that the matter has to be examined at various
levels of the Income-tax department. No sufficient
cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence,
Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the notice of
motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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