Nma/499/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. M/S Subodh Mukherji Productions,Mum
High Court
01 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/499/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. M/S Subodh Mukherji Productions,Mum
Date of order
01 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/499/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. M/S Subodh Mukherji Productions,Mum, 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.499 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.196 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.499 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.196 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Subhodh Mukherji Productions ..Respondent.
Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 305 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit of Mr.K.Mohandas in
support of the Motion. There is an additional affidavit of Mr.Manoj Kumar filed on 29/9/2007. From the affidavit it is clear that the last date for filing
the appeal was 8/4/2005. The file was sent to the
Ministry of Law on 8/4/2005. Draft was received on 30/11/2005 and the appeal is filed on 7/2/2006. The
delay between 30/11/2005 to 7/2/2006 is sought to be
explained that the Commissioner of Income Tax suggested modifications of some grounds and the panel counsel received the draft in the second week of January, 2006.
Considering the fact that the order of the I.T.A.T.
was received on 9/12/2004 and the file was sent to the
Ministry of Law on 8/4/2005 i.e. on the last date and
the subsequent delay, in our opinion, the cause shown
would not amount to sufficient cause. Considering the
same, the Motion is dismissed.
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.