Nma/2358/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Patel Roadways Ltd
High Court
03 Jul 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2358/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Patel Roadways Ltd
Date of order
03 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/2358/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Patel Roadways Ltd, the High Court (2007) 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2358 OF 2004IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.959 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Patel Roadways. Ltd. .Respondent.
Mr.A.Kotangale for appellant.
Mr.P.R.Toprani for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDR.V.MORE, JJ. DATED : 3RD JULY, 2007.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
R.V.MORE, JJ.
DATED : 3RD JULY, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 85 days in preferring
the appeal. Shri R.V.Reddy, Dy.Commissioner of
Income-tax has filed an affidavit in support of the
Notice of Motion for condonation of delay and various
steps taken therein have been set out. A reply has
been filed on behalf of the respondent opposing the
condontion of delay.
2. Considering what is set out in the affidavit
of Shri Reddy, in our opinion cause shown would amount
to sufficient cause. Delay is condoned. Motion is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Office to
register the appeal.
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(R.V.MORE, J.)
(R.V.MORE, 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.