Nma/348/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Dhanraj Mils Pvt Ltd
High Court
29 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/348/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Dhanraj Mils Pvt Ltd
Date of order
29 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nma/348/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Dhanraj Mils Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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
ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.348 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2767 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income, Mumbai
...Appellant
V/s.
Dhanraj Mills Pvt Ltd
...Respondent
Mr.B.M. Chatterji with Ms.P.P. Bhosale with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant.None for Respondent.
P.C.:-
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATED : 29[th] APRIL, 2008.
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. By this Notice of Motion,appellant is seeking condonation of 177 days delay in filing appeal. Noneappears for the Respondent though served. Perused the affidavit filed insupport of Notice of Motion. Sufficient cause is shown for condoning thedelay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on thepart of the appellant. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayerclause(a). Appeal be numbered.
2.Appeal be listed for hearing in the month of October, 2008 subject
to numbering.
3.Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly with no order as tocosts.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(A.V. NIRGUDE, 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.
EaseValue