Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City-Viii v. Maharashtra Distille...

Mumbai City-Viii v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.worli

High Court 20 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City-Viii v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.worli
Date of order
20 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai City-Viii v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.worli, 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2477 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2477 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2477 OF 2003 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.798 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.798 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City-VIII .. Appellant V/s Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.Worli .. Respondent Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the Appellant. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN& CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 20th March, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent though served. 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 23.04.2007. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan