Mumbai v. M/S. Urmila & Co. Ltd
High Court
27 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. Urmila & Co. Ltd
Date of order
27 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. Urmila & Co. Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 428 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.250 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai. ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Urmila & Co. Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs. P.P. Bhosale i/by
Pankaj Kapoor for the Appellant.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: AUGUST 27, 2007
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 27, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Though respondents have been served, no reply has
been filed opposing the averments in the affidavit
in support of the motion. Considering the delay in
the Law Ministry and the peculiar facts of the case
and as the tax incidence is more than Rs.15,45,290/-
in our opinion, the cause shown would amount to
sufficient cause. Hence, delay condoned. Motion
made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (a). Office
to register the appeal.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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