Case LawHigh Court › Nma/3346/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/3346/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S Kec Infrastructure Ltd. , Mumbai

High Court 07 Jan 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3346/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S Kec Infrastructure Ltd. , Mumbai
Date of order
07 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/3346/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai v. M/S Kec Infrastructure Ltd. , Mumbai, the High Court (2009) 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 JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3346 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODING NO.2203 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax-8...Appellant.Vs.M/s. KEC infrastructure Ltd...Respondent.Mr,. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Nilesh Shah with Mr. L.V. Boomer i/by S. Satpute& Co. for the Respondent.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATE : 7th January, 2009.PC :1. This is a notice of motion for condonation of 1046days delay in filing the main appeal. On perusing theaffidavit in support, it appears that after obtainingapproval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, thefile was sent to the standing counsel on 19.7.2005 fordrafting the appeal memo. The appeal was however, filedon 23.7.2008. In our view, the delay caused during theperiod between 19.7.2005 to 23.7.2008 has not beenproperly explained. In the circumstances, cause showndoes not amount to sufficient cause. Notice of motion is therefore, dismissed. Consequently appeal dismissed. Refund of court fee as per rules. (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