Case LawHigh Court › Nma/405/2006 Of Sthe Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/405/2006 Of Sthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax12/Mum v. Nayankuamr And Co

High Court 17 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/405/2006 Of Sthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax12/Mum v. Nayankuamr And Co
Date of order
17 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/405/2006 Of Sthe Commissioner Of Income-Tax12/Mum v. Nayankuamr And Co, 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 405 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.184 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 405 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.184 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Nayankumar & Co. ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao for appellant. Mr.F.B.Andyarjuna, senior counsel with J.N.Shah for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- Appellant has set out delay as 278 days. According to the respondents, the delay is 553 days. 2. There is an affidavit in support of the Motion. After considering the affidavit, we find that the matter was pending with the Law Department between 6/7/2004 and 21/10/2005. There is no explanation whatsoever for such a long delay. Considering the above, the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Notice of Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, 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