Nma/1707/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 v. M/S Agni Investment And Trading P. Ltd
High Court
16 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1707/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 v. M/S Agni Investment And Trading P. Ltd
Date of order
16 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1707/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 v. M/S Agni Investment And Trading P. 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1707 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.855 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1707 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.855 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Agni Investment & Trading P.Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr.J.D.Mistry with Raj Darak for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 304 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit in support filed by
Mr.V.Murlidharan. The I.T.A.T. order was received on
11/3/2005. The Chief CIT’s approval was received on
9/6/2005 and the file was sent to the Ministry of Law
immediately. The draft appeal memo was received on
24/11/2005 and the appeal was filed on 11/5/2006.
There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay
between 9/6/2005 and 24/11/2005. Apart from that there
is also no explanation for the delay between 24/11/2005
and 11/5/2006 except for saying that the stamp papers
were just received. In our opinion, the cause shown
would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is
dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, 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.