Mumbai v. Hybro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
High Court
10 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Hybro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
Date of order
10 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. Hybro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, the High Court (2008) 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
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION No.3267 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No.1907 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-8, Appellant
Mumbai
Vs
Hybro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b Mint & Confreres, for the
respondent.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent. In the
above Appeal, applicant is seeking condonation of
delay of 178 days in filing the appeal. Perused
Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support thereof.
Sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay.
There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of
bona fide on the part of the applicant. Hence, Notice
of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause
(a).
Sd/- Sd/-
- 2 -
[ V. C. DAGA,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