Nma/2090/2006 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Mumbai v. Sadharmik Utkarsh Trust
High Court
10 Aug 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2090/2006 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Mumbai v. Sadharmik Utkarsh Trust
Date of order
10 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/2090/2006 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Mumbai v. Sadharmik Utkarsh Trust, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Decision: Even so, with aview, not to cause prejudice to the contentions raisedby the appellant, we allow these motions.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2090 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1007 OF 2006
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2092 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1006 OF 2006The Director of Income Tax... Appellant(Exemption)V/s.Sadharmik Utkarsh Trust... Respondent
Mr. Shiv Motariya for the Appellant.Mr. Prakash Jhaveri, Trustee of respondent in personpresent.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &V.R. KINGAONKAR,JJ.DATED : 10th August, 2006
P.C.
.Both these motions seek condonation of delayin filing the first appeal. The delay is of 152 daysin both the matters. The usual explanation of theadministrative difficulty is given. Mr. Jhaveri, theTrustee of the respondent trust is present. Heobjects the condonation of delay. Even so, with aview, not to cause prejudice to the contentions raisedby the appellant, we allow these motions. The delayis condoned. The appeals be numbered.
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
[V.R. KINGAONKAR, 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.
EaseValue