Case LawHigh Court › Nma/363/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Nma/363/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S. Vijay Associates (Diamonds) P. Ltd

High Court 19 Jun 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/363/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S. Vijay Associates (Diamonds) P. Ltd
Date of order
19 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Nma/363/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S. Vijay Associates (Diamonds) P. 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.363 OF 2005ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.190 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Mumbai. ..... Appellant V/s. M/s.Vijay Associates (Diamonds) P. Ltd. ..... Respondent Mr.R.Ashokan a/w Poonam Bhosale i/b Pankaj Kapoor, Advocates, for theAppellant. Mrs.Vasanti Patel, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 19, 2008. P.C. 1.Heard. 2.Considering the fact disclosed in the affidavit in support of notice ofmotion, the delay of 362 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject topayment of costs of Rs.3,500/- to be paid by the appellant to therespondent within a period of 8 weeks. Though costs initially to be paid bythe appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax shall hold necessaryinquiry and fix the responsibility and identify the Officer responsible for delay in filing the appeal and shall recover the same from the concerned officer. The notice of motion accordingly stands disposed of. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, 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