Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2425/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Nma/2425/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Piem Holding Ltd

High Court 12 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2425/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Piem Holding Ltd
Date of order
12 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/2425/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Piem Holding Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

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.2425 OF 2003 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.719 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai City III .. Appellant. V/s. M/s.The Piem Holding Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.P.V. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.P.C. Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2007. P.C. : 1. Heared learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this notice of motion, the appellant is seeking condonation of 252 days delay in filing the appeal. 3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of notice of motion, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. There is no case of any inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the appellant. 2 4. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Place the appeal on board for admission on 9th April, 2007. 6. The appellant to serve a copy of memo of appeal on the respondent within a period of one week from today. (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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