M/S Collins And Company, Rep v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:14Th June, 2012
High Court
14 Jun 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
M/S Collins And Company, Rep v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:14Th June, 2012
Date of order
14 Jun 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Collins And Company, Rep v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:14Th June, 2012, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2012IN
STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1033 OF 2012
M/S COLLINS AND COMPANY, REP. THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI DANIEL SHAH VersusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND 2 ORS.,
... Applicant
... Respondents
Mr. Santosh Rama Rivonkar, Advocate for the applicant.Mrs. A. Dessai, Advocate for the respondents.
P.C.
-Coram:A. P. LAVANDE &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:14th June, 2012
Reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the applicant andMrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of395 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19/11/2010. The application hasbeen vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondents.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 395 days infiling the appeal is condoned subject to the applicant paying costs ofRs.5,000/- in favour of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji,within a period of four weeks.
5. The application stands disposed of.
A. P. LAVANDE, J.
SMA
U. V. BAKRE, 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