Itxa/1415/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. M/S Gabriel India Ltd. , Mumbai
High Court
02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1415/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. M/S Gabriel India Ltd. , Mumbai
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1415/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5, Mumbai v. M/S Gabriel India Ltd. , Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, all the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2674 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2676 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2679 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2680 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2681 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai..AppellantV/s.M/s.Gabriel India Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2675 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2682 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2683 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai..Appellant.V/s.M/s.Gagan Trading Co. Limited..Respondent.
..Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2677 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2678 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai..Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd., Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan h/f Mr.R. Asokan for the appellant in all the matters.
Ms. Aarti Sathe for the respondent in ITXA (L) Nos.2674, 2676, 2677, 2678, 2679, 2680, 2681.
Ms.Suvarna B. Shedka for the respondent in ITXA (L) No.2675, 2682 & 2683/2008.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2[nd] July, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. There is delay of more than 1000 days in filing all these appeals. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan, learned counsel h/f. Mr.R. Asokan for the revenue states that no notices of motion for condoning the delay caused in filing these appeals have been taken out by the revenue. Since there are no notices of motion for condonation of delay, the appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
2.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that though there is a prayer for condonation of delay in all these appeals, but no material facts and/or particulars are disclosed in the appeal memo much less any statement is made on oath giving explanation for delayed filing of appeals.
3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, all the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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