Nma/359/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1,Mum v. M/S Chika Overseas Ltd
High Court
16 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/359/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1,Mum v. M/S Chika Overseas Ltd
Date of order
16 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/359/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1,Mum 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.359 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.359 OF 2008
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.54 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.54 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.
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 672 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 17/10/2005. 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 appeals 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.)
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.