Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1033/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/1033/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Vii Mumbai v. M/S Nandini Piramal Inv. Ltd

High Court 14 Nov 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1033/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Vii Mumbai v. M/S Nandini Piramal Inv. Ltd
Date of order
14 Nov 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/1033/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbaicity-Vii Mumbai v. M/S Nandini Piramal Inv. Ltd, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

Decision: In the circumstances, we allow this motion.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1033 OF 2004INNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1309 OF 2003 ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.354 OF 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1033 OF 2004 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1309 OF 2003 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.354 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Nandini Piramal Inv. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D. Kanugo for appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard Mr.Kanugo in support of the motion. Mr.Shah appears for respondent. The motion seeks restoration of Appeal (Lod.) No.354 of 2003 which was dismissed for no complying with the conditional order passed on 4th March, 2004. Mr.Shah leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate order to pass appropriate order. In the circumstances, we allow this motion. Hence motion for condonation of delay stands restored to the file. Motion disposed of. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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