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.)
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.