Mumbai City-1 v. M/S.bennett Coleman & Company Ltd
High Court
05 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City-1 v. M/S.bennett Coleman & Company Ltd
Date of order
05 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai City-1 v. M/S.bennett Coleman & Company Ltd, the High Court (2007) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2135 OF 2003
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2135 OF 2003
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2135 OF 2003
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.704 OF 2003
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.704 OF 2003
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Mumbai City-1 .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. .. Respondents
Ms.P.P.Bhosale for the Appellant.
Mr.P.Rajgor i/by M/s.DSK Legal for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 5th March, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused
the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. For
the reasons stated therein, sufficient cause is made out
for condonation of delay caused in filing the Appeal.
There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of
bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, Notice of
Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Place the Appeal on board for admission on
12.03.2007.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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