In Nma/1101/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Mumbai v. M/S. Central Camera Co Pvt 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1101 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.3258 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax-2...Appellant.Vs.M/s. Central Camera Co. Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATE : 4th April, 2009.
PC
:
1. This is a notice of motion for condoning 1747 days
delay in filing the main appeal.
2. Perusal of the affidavit in support indicates thatthe file was sent for preparation of the draft appealmemo on 16.12.2003 but the appeal memo was ultimatelyreceived duly drafted in Sept. 2008. A period ofmore than four years and nine months taken for
drafting the appeal memo cannot be said to be
reasonable.
3. In our view, therefore, the cause shown does notamount to sufficient cause and hence, notice of motion
is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
( R.S. MOHITE, 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