In Kalpesh K. Shah v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2193 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1033 OF 2006
Kalpesh K. Shah .. Appellant
V/s
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax .. Respondent
Mr.Amrit Mishra for the Appellant.
Mr.A.N. Kotangale for the Respondent.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2006
P.C.
P.C. :
P.C.
1. Heard Mr.Mishra in support of this motion.
Mr.Kotangale appears for the Respondent.
2. Motion seeks condonation of delay of 8 days in
filing the appeal. The delay is in fact of 13 days.
The explanation is given in the supporting affidavit
that the office of the Appellant was being shifted. We
accept the explanation. Motion granted in terms of
prayer (a). Delay is condoned. Appeal be listed for
admission on 4th September 2006.
(H.L. GOKHALE, 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.
EaseValue