Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai v. M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd

Mumbai v. M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd

High Court 04 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd
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 Larsen & Toubro Ltd, 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. 3361 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3361 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3361 OF 2005 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1407 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1407 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 1407 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income- Tax .... Appellant Mumbai Vs. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. ..... Respondent Mr. B.M. Chatterji & Mrs. P.P. Bhosale for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry with Mr. Atul K. Jasani 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.)
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