Nma/1296/2003 Of The Commissioer Of Income Tax,City-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Khatau Industries Ltd
High Court
20 Dec 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1296/2003 Of The Commissioer Of Income Tax,City-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Khatau Industries Ltd
Date of order
20 Dec 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/1296/2003 Of The Commissioer Of Income Tax,City-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Khatau Industries Ltd, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
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 BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1296 OF 2003
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1296 OF 2003
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.342 OF 2003
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.342 OF 2003
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Khatau Industries Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale i/b. L.S. Shetty for appellant.
Ms.Beena Pilla i/b. D.M.Harish & Co. for respondent.
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH DECEMBER, 2006.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard Mr.Kotangale in support of the motion.
Ms.Pillai appears for respondent. Motion seeks
condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the appeal.
Respondents have filed their affidavit in reply
opposing the condonation of delay. It is submitted
that there is no proper explanation for the delay. As
against that, Mr.Kotangale submits that the cause of
revenue should not be made to suffer assuming that
there is any such delay. It is sought to be explained
that delay was due to various adminsitrative steps. We
accept the explanation of the appellant principally as
not to cause any prejudice to the revenue, if it has
any case on merits. The delay is, therefore, condoned.
Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
Appeal be numbered.
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.