Nma/4562/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City 25 Mumbai v. M/S. Mistry And Co
High Court
05 Feb 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4562/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City 25 Mumbai v. M/S. Mistry And Co
Date of order
05 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/4562/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City 25 Mumbai v. M/S. Mistry And Co, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3.Though we have condoned the delay, theappellant is directed to remove the officeobjections, if any, within four weeks from todayfailing which appeal to stand dismissed for nonprosecution without further reference to the court.
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.4562 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL(L)NO.2654 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income-tax..Appellant city-25Mumbai
M/s.Mistry & Co...RespondentMumbai
Mr.A.D.Kango & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan, Advocate, forAppellant None for Respondent
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO &R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
P.C.
.This is a notice of motion for condonationof 21 days delay in preferring the main appeal. Wehave perused the affidavit in support. Taking intoaccount the facts stated in the affidavit insupport, we propose to accept the cause shown forcondonation of delay subject to levy of costs.
Notice of motion is therefore, allowed and thedelay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Officeto number the appeal and list the same foradmission.
2.It is made clear that if this notice ofmotion has not been properly served on therespondent then the respondent will have liberty tomove this Court for re-call of this order.
3.Though we have condoned the delay, theappellant is directed to remove the officeobjections, if any, within four weeks from todayfailing which appeal to stand dismissed for nonprosecution 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.