Nma/263/2018 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Star Track Terminals Pvt.ltd
High Court
05 Apr 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/263/2018 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Star Track Terminals Pvt.ltd
Date of order
05 Apr 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/263/2018 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. Star Track Terminals Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The applicant is directed to remove office objections within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Rane* 1/2 * NMA—262-2018 (SR.9)
Thursday, 5.4.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 263 OF 2018
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 371 OF 2018
Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax-8
….Applicant/Orig. Appellant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Pr. Commissioner of Income
Tax-8 ….Appellant
V/s.
Star Track Terminals Pvt. Ltd.….Respondent
* * * * *
Ms. Mohinee Chougule i/by. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the applicant-original appellant. Mr. Jasani, for the respondents.
CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE :-5TH APRIL, 2018.
P.C. :-
1.
This application seeks condonation of 1 day
Rane
delay in filing the accompanying Appeal from the order
dated 07th July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal).
3. We have perused the Affidavit dated 6th March, 2018 of the applicant, Mr. T.P.S. Anand, Deputy
Commissioner of Income-Tax in support of the Motion. We are satisfied with the reasons indicated therein for the delay in filing the accompanying Appeal. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. The applicant is directed to remove office objections within a period of 4 weeks from today failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.