In Mumbai City-15 v. M/S Bhawanji Bipinchandra, 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. 1353 OF 2003
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 372 OF 2003
Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai City-15 .. Appellant
V/s
M/s Bhawanji Bipinchandra .. Respondent
Mr.R.K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Ms. Aasifa Khan i/b Jyoti Dialani for the Respondent.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER 2006
P.C.
P.C. :
P.C.
1. Heard Mr.Sharma in support of this motion.
Ms.Khan appears for the Respondent.
2. Motion seeks condonation of delay of 61 days in
filing the appeal. The explanation is given in the
supporting affidavit stating that the department was
undergoing restructuring. The application is opposed by
filing a reply. Even so, with a view not to cause any
prejudice and considering that such delay is often
caused when there is a restructuring of the department,
we grant this motion. Delay is condoned. Appeal be
numbered.
(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.