Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1684/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1684/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-6,Mumbai v. M/S.bda Limited., Mumbai

High Court 06 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1684/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-6,Mumbai v. M/S.bda Limited., Mumbai
Date of order
06 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1684/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-6,Mumbai v. M/S.bda Limited., Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Under these circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal holding it to be barred by limitation.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3019 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. BDA Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Dhananjoy Athawale for appellant. Ms. Yogini Ghawale i/b. Ray's Law Firm for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1.There is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. No Notice of Motion has been taken out. At least no statement to that effect is being made. Under these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation for want of Notice of Motion for condoning the delay. 2.It appears from paragraph 9 of the memo of appeal that there is a ground about delay, but no prayer for condoning the delay is made. No separate affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal is filed. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal holding it to be barred by limitation. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan