Nma/2975/2005 Of Commissioinerof Income-Tax,Mum v. M/S Puri Construction (Bom) P,.Ltd
High Court
05 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2975/2005 Of Commissioinerof Income-Tax,Mum v. M/S Puri Construction (Bom) P,.Ltd
Date of order
05 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2975/2005 Of Commissioinerof Income-Tax,Mum v. M/S Puri Construction (Bom) P,.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.2975 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.1229 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax,..Appellant Mumbai
V/s.
M/s.Puri Construction (Bom) P. Ltd...RespondentMumbai
Mr.A.S.Rao & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, forAppellant Usha Dalal, Advocate, for Respondent
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO &R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008
P.C.
.This is a Notice of Motion for condoning adelay of 676 days in filing of the main appeal. Onperusal of the affidavit in support we find thatthe file was sent to the Ministry of Law on 9[th]October, 2003. The draft appeal memo was receivedon 24[th] February, 2004. However, the appeal wasfiled on 3[rd] October, 2005. The last date of filingappeal was 27[th] November, 2003. The delay causedbetween 24[th] February, 2004 and 9[th] October, 2003 has
2
not been properly explained. In our view,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.