Nma/1067/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. M/S. Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd
High Court
01 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1067/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. M/S. Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd
Date of order
01 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1067/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 8 Mumbai v. M/S. Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
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.1067 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO. 2309 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax-8....Appellant.Vs.M/s. Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd....Respondent.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.A.Vissanji with Mr.S.G. Mehta for the Appellant.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATE : 1st April, 2009.PC :1. This is a notice of motion for condoning 801 daysdelay in filing the main appeal.2. Perusal of the affidavit in support indicates thatthe papers were sent for drafting the appeal memo on10.5.2006 but the appeal memo duly drafted wasreceived back sometime after on 10.7.2008. The appealwas filed on 29.7.2008. A period of about two yearsand two months for drafting the appeal memo cannot besaid to be reasonable.3,. In our view, therefore, the cause shown does notamount to sufficient cause and hence, notice of motionis dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
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