Nma/4400/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumabi v. Uttkarsh Textiles Trading Ltd
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4400/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumabi v. Uttkarsh Textiles Trading Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/4400/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumabi v. Uttkarsh Textiles Trading Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4400 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.2399 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-3..Appellant Mumbai
V/s.
Uttkarsh Textiles Trading Ltd...Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, for Appellant Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.Raj Darak, Advocate, forRespondent
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO &R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2008
P.C.
.This is a Notice of Motion for condoning adelay of 2438 days in filing of the main appeal.On perusal of the Notice of Motion we find that theorder under challenge was passed on 13[th] July, 1998.After obtaining the approval of CCIT-III the filewas sent for drafting appeal memo to the Ministryof Law and Justice on 9[th] March, 2000. The appealmemo was not drafted on 19[th] December, 2005 wasreceived on 10[th] November, 2006 nor a period of six
years cannot be said to be reasonable. The cause
shown is not sufficient cause and consequently, theNotice of Motion stands dismissed.
(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.
EaseValue