Mumbai v. M/S. Rainbow Mercantile P. Ltd
High Court
10 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. Rainbow Mercantile P. Ltd
Date of order
10 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. Rainbow Mercantile P. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
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. 3216 OF 2008
IM
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 2423 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Appellant
Mumbai
Vs
M/s. Rainbow Mercantile P. Ltd., ... Respondent
Mumbai
Mr. P. S. Sahadevan, for the appellant.
Mr. J. D. Mistry with Mr. A. K. Jasani, 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. By this
Notice of Motion, the appellant is seeking condonation
of the delay of 1263 days in filing the above Appeal.
The above Appeal is filed against the judgment and
order of ITAT dated 29th October, 2003. Perused the
Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support thereof.
It appears that the CIT granted aproval for filing the
appeal on 8th April 2004. However, it appears that
the appeal came to be lodged on 15th October 2004 i.e.
- 2 -
after a lapse of more than three & half years. The
reasons given in the affidavit, for the delay in
filing the Appeal are, the getting the draft of memo
of appeal prepapred and getting the Court-fee stamps.
We are not at all satisfied with the reasons. No case
is made out for condoning the delay. In the result,
Notice of Motion is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ 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.