Mr. Sham v. In Normal Circumstances, We Would Have Insisted Upon A
High Court
19 Dec 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mr. Sham v. In Normal Circumstances, We Would Have Insisted Upon A
Date of order
19 Dec 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. Sham v. In Normal Circumstances, We Would Have Insisted Upon A, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Urmila Ingale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 861 OF 2019
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1760 OF 2019
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune … ApplicantVs.
Arihant Builders … Respondent
Mr. Sham V. Walve for the Applicant.None for the Respondent.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.
P. C. :
DATE : 19 DECEMBER, 2019.
In normal circumstances, we would have insisted upon a
format notice to be served on the Respondent, however, we note that
delay in filing the Appeal is only of One day and appellants haveserved respondent by way of private notice and have undertaken to filean affidavit of service, we have proceeded with the matter. Sufficientcause is made out. Delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Noticeof Motion is allowed. Affidavit of service to be filed by 9 January2020.
[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]
1/1
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