Nma/2779/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3,Mum v. M/S Rashi Trading Co.pvt Ltd
High Court
05 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2779/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3,Mum v. M/S Rashi Trading Co.pvt Ltd
Date of order
05 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2779/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3,Mum v. M/S Rashi Trading Co.pvt 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.2779 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.1134 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3..Appellant Mumbai
V/s.
M/s.Rashi Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd...RespondentMumbai
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, for AppellantMr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.Raj Darak, Advocate, forRespondent
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO &
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008
P.C.
.This is a Notice of Motion for condoning a
delay of 483 days in filing of the main appeal. Onperusal of the affidavit in support we find thatthe permission to file appeal was received on 25[th]
March, 2004 and the matter was sent to the
Government Counsel for drafting thereafter. Theappeal was however, filed on 16[th] September, 2005.
The delay of about two years and six months formerely drafting an appeal memo and filing the same
cannot be said to be reasonable. In our view,
therefore, the cause shown does not amount to
sufficient cause and hence, the Notice of Motionstands 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.