Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1699/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/1699/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Daswani And Co

High Court 09 Jul 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1699/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Daswani And Co
Date of order
09 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/1699/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S Daswani And Co, 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.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1699 OF 2004 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.744 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Applicant. V/s. M/s.Deswani & Co. .. Respondent. Mr.A.S. Rao i/by Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the applicant. Ms.Beena Pillai i/by D.M. Harish & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2007. P.C. : 1. From the additional affidavit filed by Shri Arvind R. Deshpande which has been described as better affidavit in which various dates whereby steps were taken for the purposes of filing Appeal has been set out. It is pointed out that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Bombay approved filing of Appeal on 14th October, 2002 and the file was sent to the Ministry of Law. The draft Appeal was received on 18th March, 2004. In other words, there is no explanation as to why it took more than one year and five months for drafting the Appeal Memo. 2. In our opinion, the cause shown, therefore, would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, the notice of motion is dismissed. 2 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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