Case LawHigh Court › Nma/3221/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/3221/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mcity-12,Mum v. Estate Of Late Mrs Aparna P.trivedi

High Court 05 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3221/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mcity-12,Mum v. Estate Of Late Mrs Aparna P.trivedi
Date of order
05 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/3221/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mcity-12,Mum v. Estate Of Late Mrs Aparna P.trivedi, 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.3221 OF 2005IN INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.1327 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax,..Appellant Mumbai V/s. Estate of Late Mrs.Aparna P. Trivedi ..RespondentMumbai Mr.A.S.Rao and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, forAppellant Mr.Keshav B. Bhujle, Advocate,for Respondent CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. .This is a Notice of Motion for condoning a delay of 257 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 1[st] February, 2005 andthe appeal was filed on 16[th] September, 2005. Thedelay between 1[st] February, 2005 and 16[th] September, 2 2005 has not been properly explained. The last date for filing the appeal was 7[th] February, 2005. In our view, therefore, the cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause and hence, the Notice ofMotion stands dismissed.Motion stands dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
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