Nma/2889/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-4, Mumbai v. M/S. Madhumilan Industries Ltd
High Court
05 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2889/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-4, Mumbai v. M/S. Madhumilan Industries Ltd
Date of order
05 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/2889/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-4, Mumbai v. M/S. Madhumilan Industries 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2889 OF 2005
ININCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.1200 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax 4,..Appellant Mumbai
V/s.
M/s.Madhumilan Industries Ltd...RespondentMumbai
Ms.P.P.Bhosale with Mr.B.M.Chatterji &Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, for AppellantMadhavi Tavanandi, Advocate, for Respondent
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO &R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
P.C.
.This is a Notice of Motion for condoning adelay of 384 days in filing of the main appeal.Perusal of the affidavit in support indicates thatthe file was sent to the Ministry of Law fordrafting an appeal memo on 25[th] May, 2004 and thedraft memo of appeal was received on 21[st] February,2005. The appeal was thereafter filed on 28[th]September, 2005. A period of more than sevenmonths for drafting an appeal memo cannot be said
to be reasonable.
Similarly, there is no
explanation for the delay caused during 21[st]February, 2005 and 28[th] September, 2005. In ourview, therefore, the cause shown does not amount tosufficient 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.