Nma/3460/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income -Tax-12, Mumbai v. M/S. Anuradha Corporation,Mumbai
High Court
12 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3460/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income -Tax-12, Mumbai v. M/S. Anuradha Corporation,Mumbai
Date of order
12 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3460/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income -Tax-12, Mumbai v. M/S. Anuradha Corporation,Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion does not survive and hence the same is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2208 OF 2009WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3460 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Anuradha Corporation
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b. P.S. Sahadevan the appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009
P.C. :
1.The appeal is barred by limitation. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. Notice of Motion is taken out seeking condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of CentralExcise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
3. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion does not survive and hence the same is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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.