Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1577/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/1577/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S Taida Trading And Industries Ltd

High Court 16 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1577/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S Taida Trading And Industries Ltd
Date of order
16 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/1577/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai v. M/S Taida Trading And Industries 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1577 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.736 OF 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1577 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.736 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Taida Trading & Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.B.M.Chatterji with P.P.Bhosale for appellant. Mr.P.S.Tripathi for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- There is a delay of 385 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support. The I.T.A.T. order is dated 16/7/2004 and the matter was referred to the concerned assessing officer on 8/12/2004. It was sent to the Ministry of Law on 1/4/2005. Draft appeal memo was received on 10/4/2006 and the appeal was filed on 24/4/2006. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay between 1/4/2005 to 10/4/2006. In our opinion, the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan