Case Law › High Court › Nma/4437/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/4437/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Tds) Mumbai v. M/S Nagase & Co Ltd

High Court 04 Dec 2007 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

04 Dec 2007

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/4437/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Tds) Mumbai v. M/S Nagase & Co Ltd, 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4437 OF 2006inINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2166 of 2006inINCOME TAX APEAL NO.OF 2006The Commissioner of IncomeTax TDS Mumbai.. AppellantvsM/s Nagase & Co Ltd..RespondentMr.A.D.Kango for AppellantMs.L.H.Lund with Ms.Lata Desai for RespondentCORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDR.S.MOHITE, JJDATED : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007P.C.1. This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 646days delay in filing of the aforesaid Income TaxAppeal. A perusal of the affidavit in support ofthe Notice of Motion indicates that after thepassing of the impugned order, the case papers weresent to the Ministry of Law and Justice on122/12/2004. The affidavit indicates that the samewas received back on 1/12/2006 unattended. In ourview, the delay between the period 22/12/2004 and1/12/2006 is not explained. Therefore, the causeshown is not sufficient cause. As a result, theNotice of Motion is dismissed. (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.