Nma/1493/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8,Mumbai v. M/S Kec International Ltd
High Court
09 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1493/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8,Mumbai v. M/S Kec International Ltd
Date of order
09 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/1493/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -8,Mumbai v. M/S Kec International Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE.
ORIGINAL SIDE.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1493 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1050 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes,Office :
Memorandum of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s :
orders or directions :
Prothonotaries orders. :
------------------------------------------------------------
P.P.Kakade for the appellant.
Nitesh Joshi with Sandip Sharma i/b
Shaunak Satpute & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED: 9th July 2008.
DATED: 9th July 2008.
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for both
sides.
2. No reply has been filed by the
respondent to the affidavit filed in
support of notice of motion.
3. It appears that there is no
proper explanation given why the
department took seven months to draft
appeal. However, considering that the
public revenue is involved, in our
opinion, it would be proper to condone
delay, but the appellant will have to pay
costs to the respondent.
4. Motion is granted in terms of
prayer clauses (a), subject to payment of
costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent.
. Motion stands disposed of.
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, 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.