In M/S Minakshi Builders v. Income Tax Officer, Ward I Ahmednagar, the High Court (2023) allowed 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
6 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10854 OF 2023 IN ITAST/24380/2023 WITH CA/10855/2023 IN ITAST/24400/2023; CA/10859/2023 IN ITAST/24402/2023; CA/10858/2023 IN ITAST/24404/2023; CA/10857/2023 IN ITAST/24407/2023; CA/10856/2023 IN ITAST/24409/2023
M/S MINAKSHI BUILDERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER BINDU RAJESH JAINVERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I AHMEDNAGAR
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Malpani Mohit RajendraAdvocate for the respondent : Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2023
PC :
Heard. In all these matters, we have heard both the sidesseeking condonation of delay in filing the tax appeals. The delay is of132 days.
2.The learned advocate for the revenue strongly opposesthe request.
3.Considering the nature of the dispute coupled with the factthat the case being demonstrated has not been controverted, theapplications are allowed. Delays are condoned subject to the conditionthat the appellants deposit costs of Rs.2000/- within three weeks quaeach appeal. The revenue shall be entitled to claim those costs.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
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