Nma/377/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2 v. Nahar Enterprises
High Court
06 Jul 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/377/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2 v. Nahar Enterprises
Date of order
06 Jul 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/377/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2 v. Nahar Enterprises, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The applicant is directed to remove officeobjections within a period of 4 weeks from today failingwhich the Appeal would stand dismissed without furtherreference to the Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Rane
* 1/2 * NMA-377-2018 (SR.15)
Friday, 6.7.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 377 OF 2018
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 2315 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Central-2
….Applicant(Original Appellant)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Central-2….AppellantV/s.Nahar Enterprises….Respondent
* * * * *
Mr. A.K. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant-original appellant.
Mr. D.V. Deokar a/w. Ms. Jasmine Upadhaye i/by. Parimal K. Shroff and Co. Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &DATE :-6TH JULY, 2018.
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
P.C. :-
This application has been taken out to condone
Rane
3 days delay in filing the accompanying Appeal from theorder dated 15th May, 2017 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal).
2.
We have perused the Affidavit in support of the
Motion dated 29th January, 2018 filed by the DeputyCommissioner of Income-Tax. We are satisfied with thereasons indicated therein for the delay caused in filing theaccompanying Appeal. Accordingly, the Notice of Motionis allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
3. The applicant is directed to remove officeobjections within a period of 4 weeks from today failingwhich the Appeal would stand dismissed without furtherreference to the Court.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.