Nma/1367/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Lohiia And Devikesh
High Court
21 Aug 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1367/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Lohiia And Devikesh
Date of order
21 Aug 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1367/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii Pune v. Lohiia And Devikesh, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.The appeal stands dismissed in view of the self-operative conditional order dated 6.10.2009, by which the appellant was granted eight weeks time to remove the office objections.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1367 OF 2012
ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4543 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, MumbaiV/s.M/s.Lohia & Devikesh
....Appellant
....Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATE : 21ST AUGUST, 2012.
M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
P.C. :-
1.This is the appellant’s notice of motion for condonation of
delay of 733 days.
2.The appeal stands dismissed in view of the self-operative
conditional order dated 6.10.2009, by which the appellant was granted eight weeks time to remove the office objections.
3.Despite that, the appellant failed to remove the office objections within the stipulated time on account of the administrative difficulties including shortage of staff.
4.The lapse was noticed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant while attending another appeal in respect of the same respondent. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the respondent.
5.In the circumstances, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (A) and (B).
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, 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