Nma/1475/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd
High Court
11 Jun 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1475/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd
Date of order
11 Jun 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/1475/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-7, Mumbai v. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd, the High Court (2007) 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OFMOTION NO. 1475 OF 2004
NOTICE OF
IN
INCOME TAXAPPEAL (LDG.) NO. 561 OF 2004
INCOME TAX
The Commissioner of Income
Tax, Mumbai. ... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Ruby Mills Limited. ... Respondent.
A.D.Kango for the appellant.
Mr.Murlidhar i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co.
for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED : 11th June 2007.
DATED : 11th June 2007.
P.C. :
P.C. :----
----
. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By this notice of motion, appellant seeks
to condone delay of 99 days in filing appeal.
3. Perused notice of motion and affidavit in
support thereof. No affidavit in reply is filed
controverting the contentions of the appellant. For
the reasons stated therein sufficient cause is made
out for condoning delay in filing appeal. There is no
case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on
the part of the appellant. Hence notice of motion is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
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