Case LawHigh Court › Nma/3364/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/3364/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai-City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vitessee Trading Ltd

High Court 09 Apr 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3364/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai-City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vitessee Trading Ltd
Date of order
09 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
1988-89
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Nma/3364/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai-City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vitessee Trading Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

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 OF MOTION NO. 3364 OF 2003 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1119 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Vitessee Trading Ltd., Mumbai. ... Respondent. A.D.Kango for the appellant. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 9th April 2007. DATED : 9th April 2007. DATED : 9th April 2007. P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By this notice of motion, appellant seeks to condone delay of 282 days in filing appeal. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1988-89. The total income chargeable to income-tax is shown as Rs.72,804/-. As such, the tax liability is much less than the amount prescribed in Circular F.No.279/126/98-ITJ dated 27th March 2000 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India. No purpose would be served by condoning the delay, since we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. Notice of motion is, therefore, rejected. Appeal papers be consigned to record.
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