Case LawHigh Court › Nma/266/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Nma/266/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii v. Photophone Ltd

High Court 03 Oct 2006 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/266/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii v. Photophone Ltd
Date of order
03 Oct 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Nma/266/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii v. Photophone Ltd, the High Court (2006) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

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 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.266 OF 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.266 OF 2002 ININCOME TAX APPLICATION (LODG.) NO.5 OF 2002 IN INCOME TAX APPLICATION (LODG.) NO.5 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Applicant. V/s. Photophne Limited ..Respondent. Mr.S.M.Shah for applicant. None for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2006. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard M.Shah in support the Motion. The Motion seeks condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the application. The Motion has been served on the respondent. The affidavit of service has been filed. None is present for the respondent. We accept the explanation given in the supporting affidavit. In the circumstances, the Motion is allowed. Delay condoned. Application be numbered and listed for admission on 16th October, 2006. Respondent to be served once again. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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