Nma/2524/2009 Of Director Of Income Taxz v. Indian Hotels Co Ltd
High Court
23 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2524/2009 Of Director Of Income Taxz v. Indian Hotels Co Ltd
Date of order
23 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2524/2009 Of Director Of Income Taxz v. Indian Hotels Co Ltd, the High Court (2009) 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2524 OF 2009 ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.959 OF 2009
The Director of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Parag Vyas for appellant.
Mr. Ajit Shah with Dinesh Vyas for respondent.
P.C. :-
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009.
1.The appeal is barred by limitation. Notice of motion is taken out seeking condonation of delay of 120 days. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.In this view of the matter, notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.
3.In view of dismissal of the notice of motion, appeal papers be consigned to record.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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.