Nma/3473/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Hafkine Bio Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd
High Court
11 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3473/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Hafkine Bio Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd
Date of order
11 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3473/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Hafkine Bio Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3473 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3473 OF 2006
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1875 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1875 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Haffkine Bio Pharmaceutical
Corporation Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 1445 days delay in filing the
above appeal. Perused the affidavit filed in support
of the Notice of Motion. The order of I.T.A.T. is
dated 16/4/2002. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
granted approval on 4/10/2002 for filing the appeal.
However, the appeal was filed on 18/9/2006 i.e. after
a lapse of almost 4 years. The reasons given for the
delay in filing the appeal is that there was delay in
drafting the appeal memo and it was beyond the control
of the appellant’s office. The reasons given are
totally unsatisfactory. No case is made out for
condoning the delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
2. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.