Nma/3595/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited ( Meltron )
High Court
11 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3595/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited ( Meltron )
Date of order
11 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3595/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Mumbai v. M/S. Maharashtra Electronics Corporation Limited ( Meltron ), 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.3595 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3595 OF 2007
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.2105 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.2105 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Maharashtra Electronics Corpn. Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.S.M.Shah for appellant.
None 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.
None for the respondent, though served. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 446 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 21/2/2006. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
granted approval on 21/8/2006 for filing the appeal.
However, the appeal was filed on 11/9/2007 i.e. after
a lapse of 13 months. The reasons given for the delay
in filing the appeal is that the delay is purely due to
administrative exigencies and procedural formalities
which were 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.