In Nma/267/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-Vii, Mumbai v. Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd, the High Court (2005) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 149 OF 2002WITHNOTICE OFMOTION NO. 267 OF 2003ININCOME TAXAPPEAL NO. 63 OF 2002
The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Hindustand Dorr Oliver Ltd. ... Respondent.
A.S.Rao for the appellant.
B.D.Damodar i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 5th May 2005.
P.C. :----
.On 11th April, 2005 following order was
passed in Notice of Motion No.267 of 2003:
"For the reasons stated in the affidavitdelay in presenting appeal is condoned.Motion is allowed. Office is directed toregister the appeal, if not registered, andplace it for admission in due course."
In Notice of Motion No.149 of 2002 the followingorder is passed:
"In view of the order passed by us on Noticeof Motion No.267 of 2003, this motion doesnot survive.".Today it is brought to our notice that theappeal itself has been dismissed in view ofself-operating conditional order dated 18th
of 2002 are recalled. Motions be placed for hearing
after Summer Vacation.
*****
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