Nma/3772/2009 Of Director Of Income Tax International Taxation v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc
High Court
30 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/3772/2009 Of Director Of Income Tax International Taxation v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc
Date of order
30 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/3772/2009 Of Director Of Income Tax International Taxation v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In view of dismissal of the appeal, the notice of motion does not survive and hence the same is dismissed as such.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2593 OF 2009WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3772 OF 2009
Director of Income Tax International Taxation
..Appellant.
V/s.
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.The appeal is barred by limitation. Notice of motion is taken out seeking condonation of 609 days delay in filing the appeal. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of CentralExcise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.). we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.
3.In view of dismissal of the appeal, the notice of motion does not survive and hence the same is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.