Nma/1317/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Mumbai v. The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd
High Court
22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1317/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Mumbai v. The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1317/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Mumbai v. The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1317 OF 2006IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1317 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.692 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.692 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.A.D.Kango for appellant.
Mr.P.J.Pardiwala with Nitish Doshi i/b. Crawford
Bayley and Co. for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 457 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the
Motion. As per the affidavit, the order of the
I.T.A.T. was received in the office of CIT(TDS),
Mumbai on 21/9/2004. The Chief CIT’s granted approval
on 13/12/2004 and the appeal was filed on 19/4/2006.
The last date for filing the appeal was 18/1/2005. The
file was sent to Ministry of Law on 29/12/2004. The
file was returned only after the circular of the
Ministry of Law regarding handing over income tax
matters to the department w.e.f. 1/12/2005.
Thereafter matter was alloted to counsel on the panel
on 1/2/2006. There is no explanation whatsoever for
the delay between 29/12/2004 to 1/2/2006. In our
opinion, therefore, the cause shown would not amount to
sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, 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.