Case Law › High Court › Nma/4078/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/4078/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2 Mumbai v. M/S. Tractor Engineers Ltd

High Court 15 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

15 Jan 2008

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/4078/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2 Mumbai v. M/S. Tractor Engineers Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: As the motion for condonation of delay is dismissed,appeal is dismissed.appeal is dismissed.

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 JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4078 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2412 OF 2006The Commissioner of Income tax...Appellant.Vs.M/s. Tractor Engineers Ltd...Respondent.Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 15TH JANUARY,2008.PC :1. This is a notice of motion for condonation of 680days delay in preferring the main appeal. On perusal ofthe affidavit in support indicates that CIT-2 approvedthe proposal for filing the appeal on 4.1.2005 andthereafter matter was sent for drafting the appeal. Thedraft was received from Advocate on 27.10.2006. In ourview, period of more than one year and nine months forfiling the appeal is unreasonable. Therefore, cause shown is not sufficient cause and consequently the notice of motion stands dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) PC : 1. As the motion for condonation of delay is dismissed,appeal is dismissed.appeal is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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.