Nma/3368/2003 Of The Commissionher Of Income-Tax,Mumbai,City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vilessee Trading Ltd
High Court
09 Apr 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3368/2003 Of The Commissionher Of Income-Tax,Mumbai,City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vilessee Trading Ltd
Date of order
09 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
1989-90
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/3368/2003 Of The Commissionher Of Income-Tax,Mumbai,City-7 Mumbai v. M/S Vilessee 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3368 OF 2003
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3368 OF 2003
ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1120 OF 2003
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1120 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.
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 1989-90. In the
above appeal, the question of law raised is with
regard to allowance of claim of the assessee on
account of the income by way of cylinder hire charges
amounting to Rs.2,09,960/-. Considering this amount,
the tax liability would be 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.
*****
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.