Nma/4154/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Dainty Investment And Leasing Pvt. Ltd
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4154/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Dainty Investment And Leasing Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/4154/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Dainty Investment And Leasing Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 2.Though we have condoned the delay, theAppellant is directed to remove the officeobjections, if any, within six weeks from today,failing which Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4154 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1638 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3,..Appellant Mumbai
M/s.Dainty Investment and Leasing ..Respondent Pvt. Ltd.
Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, forAppellant Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.Raj Darak, Advocate, forRespondent
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2008
P.C.
.The delay is less than 200 days.
Considering the practical difficulties which the
Department was facing including referring the
matters to the Law Department, Government of Indiafor drafting the Appeal Memo and considering the
affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, in
our opinion, the cause shown would amount tosufficient cause. Hence, delay condoned. TheNotice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayerClause (a). Office to register the Appeal and listthe same for admission.
2.Though we have condoned the delay, theAppellant is directed to remove the officeobjections, if any, within six weeks from today,failing which Appeal to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court.
(R.S.MOHITE, 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.