Nma/3061/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Coronet Investment P. Ltd
High Court
19 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3061/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Coronet Investment P. Ltd
Date of order
19 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3061/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Coronet Investment P. Ltd, the High Court (2007) 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 BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3061 OF 2005ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1285 OF 2005
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3061 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1285 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Coronet Investment Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for appellant.
Mr.B.D.Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co. for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
DATED : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 402 days in preferring
the appeal. From the additional affidavit filed, it is
seen that the order of the I.T.A.T. was received on
13/5/2004. On 9/7/2004 CIT (C)-III intimated not to
prefer appeal. On 31/1/2005 a recommendation was put
that the appeal be filed. Thereafter, there are
various dates. Draft appeal was received on 22/3/2005.
Then on 3/8/2005 the assessing officer requested for
providing stamp paper and they were received on
31/8/2005 and the appeal is filed on 10/10/2005. Even
if the earlier dates are omitted considering
departmental procedure, there is no explanation after 31/8/2005 till 10/10/2005. In our opinion therefore,
the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause.
Hence motion is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.