Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2865/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/2865/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Silkina Trading Ltd

High Court 09 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2865/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Silkina Trading Ltd
Date of order
09 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Nma/2865/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S Silkina Trading Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

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 BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2865 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1463 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memorandum of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances, Court’s : orders or directions : Prothonotaries orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ Vimal Gupta with S.R.Chavan for the appellant. J.D.Mistry with P.C.Tripathi i/b. Raj Darak for the respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH ANDV.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 9th July 2008. DATED: 9th July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: . The respondent has not denied any averments made in the affidavit filed in support of notice of motion. Considering the law laid down by the by the Supreme Court in relation to the exercise of powers to condone delay and also considering that this is a matter of revenue wherein public interest is involved, in our opinion, delay has to be condoned. 2. In the result, motion is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). Motion stands disposed of.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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