Itxa/1664/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 Mumbai v. M/S. Reliance Inds. Ltd
High Court
30 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1664/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 Mumbai v. M/S. Reliance Inds. Ltd
Date of order
30 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1664/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 Mumbai v. M/S. Reliance Inds. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2709/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.804/2007
(The CIT Mumbai V/s.M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd.)
____________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memo- ¦
-randa of Coram, Apperances¦ Court’s or Judges Orders
Courts orders or directions¦
and Prothonotary’s orders ¦
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE30th April, 2008P.C.:
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
: DATE30th April, 2008
: DATE
: DATE
P.C.:
. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.Vimal Gupta
with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant &
Mr.J.D.Mistri with Mr.Raj Darak for
Respondent. By this Notice of Motion, the
Appellant is seeking condonation of more
than 369 days days’ delay caused in filing
the Appeal. It appears that though the last
date for filing the Appeals was 20.4.2006
the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on
17.4.2007. The reasons given for delay that
of administrative difficulties and the
non-availability of Court fee stamps etc.
does not appear to be justifiable. No
sufficient cause is made out for condonation
of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands
dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of
Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.804/2007
also stands dismissed.
(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.