Nma/351/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Mr Bhupendra C. Dalal
High Court
16 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/351/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Mr Bhupendra C. Dalal
Date of order
16 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/351/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii,Mum v. Mr Bhupendra C. Dalal, 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.351 OF 2008IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.351 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.32 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.32 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Bhupendra C. Dalal ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.Sameer Dalal for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 527 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 13/1/2006. The affidavit in support of the
Notice of Motion even does not mention the steps taken
by the appellant and the reasons for the delay in
between those steps. Even the date on which the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax granted the approval for
filing the appeal is not mentioned. The reasons given
for the delay in filing the appeal is that there was
delay in getting the draft appeal memo and non
availability of stamp papers. 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.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.