Nma/1436/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi, Mumbai v. M/S Mandhana Industries Ltd
High Court
09 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1436/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi, Mumbai v. M/S Mandhana Industries Ltd
Date of order
09 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1436/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vi, Mumbai v. M/S Mandhana Industries Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1436 OF 2008WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO.141 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax VI,MumbaiV/s.Mandhana Industries Ltd.
.
...Appellant...Respondent
Mr.A.D. Kango, Advocate, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C. :
.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.None appears for the Respondent.
2.By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant isseeking condonation of delay of 309 days in filing theAppeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Noticeof Motion. The Appeal is arising out of the ITAT’sorder dated 10th November, 2006. The Chief CIT hadgranted approval for filing the Appeal on 28th March,2007, however it took more than 10 months time to getthe Memo of Appeal drafted. The Appeal came to belodged only on 18th January, 2008.
: 2 :
3.We are not satisfied with the reasons givenfor delay in filing of the Appeal. The reasons givenfor delay that of getting the Appeal Memo prepared andother reasons beyond the control of the Appellant’soffice including the administrative difficulties etc.does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient causeis made out for condonation of delay. Hence Notice ofMotion stands dismissed.
4.In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion,Income Tax Appeal (L.) No.141 of 2008 also standsdismissed.
[A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
[DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.