Mumbai v. M/S Champaklal Jamnadas & Co
High Court
04 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S Champaklal Jamnadas & Co
Date of order
04 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S Champaklal Jamnadas & Co, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
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. 3327 OF 2005
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3327 OF 2005
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3327 OF 2005
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1404 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1404 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1404 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income- Tax .... Appellant
Mumbai
Vs.
M/s Champaklal Jamnadas & Co. ..... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterji & Mrs. P.P. Bhosale for the
Appellant.
Mr. S.S. Shetty for the Respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2007
P.C.
. The delay is less than 200 days.
Considering the practical difficulties which the
Department was facing including referring the
matters to the Law Department, Government of India
for drafting the Appeal Memo and considering the
affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, in
our opinion, the cause shown would amount to
sufficient cause. Hence, delay condoned. The
Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
2. Office to register the Appeal.
2
( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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.