Nma/2600/2006 Of Director Ofincometax(Intrnational Taxation),Mum v. Satelite Television Asia Region Ltd
High Court
04 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2600/2006 Of Director Ofincometax(Intrnational Taxation),Mum v. Satelite Television Asia Region Ltd
Date of order
04 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2600/2006 Of Director Ofincometax(Intrnational Taxation),Mum v. Satelite Television Asia Region Ltd, 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2600 OF 2006IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.1613 OF 2005
The Director of Income Tax(International Taxation)Mumbai
..Appellant
V/s.
Satellite Television Asia Region Ltd...Respondent Mumbai
Ms.Poonam Bhosale, Mr.B.M.Chatterji andMr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, for AppellantMr.Poras Kaka with Mr.Atul K. Jasani, Advocate, forRespondent
P.C.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008
.This is a Notice of Motion for condoning a
delay of 509 days in filing of the main appeal. Onperusal of the affidavit in support it is seen thatthe matter was sent to the Ministry of Law fordrafting an appeal memo on 14[th] July, 2004. Thedraft memo of appeal was received on 15[th] July,2005. The delay of more than one year for drafting
the appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable.
The cause shown is not sufficient cause. Hence,
the Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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