Nma/1029/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3 Mumbai v. M/S. Simplex Engineering And Foundry Works Ltd
High Court
31 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1029/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3 Mumbai v. M/S. Simplex Engineering And Foundry Works Ltd
Date of order
31 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1029/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3 Mumbai v. M/S. Simplex Engineering And Foundry Works Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1029 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2193 OF 2007The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant.Vs.M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Workd Ltd...Respondent.Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for theAppellant.None for the Respondent.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATE : 31st March, 2009.PC :1. This is a notice of motion for condonation of 349days delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of theaffidavit in support of the notice of motion, it isseen that the last date for filing the appeal was6.10.2006. The draft of the appeal memo was receivedfrom the counsel on 5.4.2007 and the appeal was filedon 20.9.2007. There is no explanation whatsoever forthe delay caused between 5.4.2007 and 20.9.2007. Inour view, therefore, the cause shown does not amountto sufficient cause. Hence, notice of motion is
dismissed. Consequently, appeal dismissed.
( R.S. MOHITE, 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.