Nma/3748/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-18, Mumbai v. M/S. Accurate Minerals
High Court
26 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3748/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-18, Mumbai v. M/S. Accurate Minerals
Date of order
26 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3748/2005 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-18, Mumbai v. M/S. Accurate Minerals, the High Court (2007) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3748 OF 2005ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1632 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Accurate Mineral ..Respondent.
Mr.R.G. Bhate and P.S. Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.Ivor Peter D’cruz for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. The order of the I.T.A.T. was received on
9/3/2004. The file was sent to the Ministry of Law on
24/6/2004. Letter for Court fees stamp was written on
28/6/2004. Stamp papers were supplied on 15/11/2005.
Appeal was filed on 30/11/2005. There is no
explanation whatsoever for the delay between 28/6/2004
and 15/11/2005. In our opinion, the cause shown would
not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is
dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.