Mumbai v. Mr.s.m.shah For
High Court
28 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Mr.s.m.shah For
Date of order
28 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. Mr.s.m.shah For, 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1242of 2008
in
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.783 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax14 Mumbai. AppellantVs.
Smt.Umadevi Dalmiya (HUF) .. Respondent
Mr.S.M.Shah for AppellantMr.S.J.Mehta for Respondent
CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan andA.V.Nirgude, JJDATED : 28th April, 2008
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant andrespondents.
2. By this appeal, appellant is seekingcondonation of 225 days delay in filing the aboveappeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavitin support of the notice of motion, sufficientcause is made out for condonation of delay andthere is no case of inaction, negligence or wantof bonafide on the part of the appellant. Hence,notice of motion is made absolute in terms ofprayer clause (a).
(A.V.Nirgude, 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