Nma/2434/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Goodlass Neroclc Paints Limited
High Court
28 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2434/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Goodlass Neroclc Paints Limited
Date of order
28 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2434/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Goodlass Neroclc Paints Limited, the High Court (2008) 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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2374 OF 2007
in
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1006 OF 2007
The Commissioner of IncomeTax Mumbai City VI... Appellant
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited.. Respondent
Mr.A.D.Kango for AppellantNone for Respondent
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Bythis notice of motion, the appellant is seekingcondonation of 274 days delay in filing theappeal.
2. Perused the affidavit in support of the noticeof motion. The appeal is filed against the orderdated 29th March 2006 and the Commissioner ofIncome Tax had granted approval for filing theappeal on 18th August, 2006 and the appeal came tobe filed on 10th May 2007. We are not satisfiedwith the reasons given for condonation of delay.The reasons given for delay that of shortage ofstamp paper in the office etc does not appear tobe justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out
for condonation of delay. Hence, notice of motionstands dismissed.
3. In view of dismissal of the notice of motion,Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1006 of 2007 alsostands dismissed.
(A.V.Nirgude, J)(Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, 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.