Case LawHigh Court › Nma/3338/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Nma/3338/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Basf India Ltd

High Court 23 Apr 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3338/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Basf India Ltd
Date of order
23 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/3338/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Basf India 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OFMOTION NO. 3338 OF 2003IN NOTICE OF IN INCOME TAXAPPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1051 OF 2003 INCOME TAX The Commissioner of Income-tax, City-6, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s. B.A.S.F. India Ltd. ... Respondent. Mr A. D.Kango for the appellant. Mr A. K. Jasani i/b T. Pooran & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 23rd April 2007. DATED : 23rd April 2007. P.C. : P.C. :---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the notice of motion taken out for condoning 225 days delay in filing the above appeal. Affidavit in support of the notice of motion was filed on 13.11.2003. The better affidavit dated 13.3.2004 is also filed in this case. 3. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the memo of the appeal was ready and received on 25.3.2003, however, the appeal was filed on 4.11.2003 and the last date for filing the appeal was 24.3.2003 In view thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant had sought two week’s time for filing proper affidavit explaining the above delay. Thereafter, again on 16.4.2007 further one week’s time was granted. Even today, there is no explanation forthcoming with regard to the aforesaid delay of six months. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to condone delay. Therefore, the notice of motion stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, 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