Nma/1101/2018 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Century Textiles And Industries Ltd
High Court
18 Jan 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1101/2018 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Century Textiles And Industries Ltd
Date of order
18 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/1101/2018 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. Century Textiles And Industries Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1101 OF 2018ININ
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.71 OF 2018
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai. … Applicant/AppellantAppellant
V/s.
M/s Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.… Respondent
---
Mr.A.R.Malhotra with Mr.N.A.Kazi for the Applicant/Appellant.---
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2019.
P.C.:-
1.This application seeks condonation of 23 days delay in
taking out this notice of motion for setting aside the order dated16[th] August, 2018 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master,16[th] August, 2018 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master,
High Court, Mumbai. The impugned order rejected applicant'sappeal for non-removal of office objections in terms of Rule 986of the Bombay High Court, Original Sides Rules.appeal for non-removal of office objections in terms of Rule 986of the Bombay High Court, Original Sides Rules.
2.We have perused the affidavit-in-support and are satisfiedwith the reasons indicated therein for the delay for taking outwith the reasons indicated therein for the delay for taking out
Priya Soparkar
application as well as for not removing the office objectionswithin the time limit provided by the Prothonotary and SeniorMaster.
3.In the above view, the notice of motion is allowed in termsof prayer clauses (a) and (b).
4.Needless to say, if the office objections are not removedwithin four weeks from today, the Appeal would stand dismissedwithout further reference to the court.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,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.