Case LawHigh Court › Nma/357/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Nma/357/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Mumbai v. M/S Chika Overseas Ltd

High Court 16 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/357/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Mumbai v. M/S Chika Overseas Ltd
Date of order
16 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/357/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Mumbai v. M/S Chika Overseas 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.357 OF 2008IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.357 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.53 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.53 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Chika Overseas Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.S.J.Mehta for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008. 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 1069 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 21/6/2004. The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion is totally vague and no particular dates have been given with regard to the steps taken by the appellant and the reasons for the delay occurred in between those steps. The reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal is that there was stalemate between the Law Ministry and the Income Tax Department due to which appeal papers were kept in abeyance and it was beyond the control of the appellant and administrative exigencies and procedural formalities. 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.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan