In Mumbai v. M/S. Pheroza Framroze & Co, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
mt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 540 OF 2011IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1018 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income-Tax-12
Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. Pheroza Framroze & Co.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta h/f Padma divakar for the Appellant.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011.
P.C.
Heard. None for the Respondent though served.
2.For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, delay of 15 days is condoned. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
( A.A. SAYED, J. )
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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