In Nma/510/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18, Mumbai v. M/S Padhrod, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.510 OF 2008 IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.510 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.304 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.304 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Padhrod ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan with R.G.Bhat for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion.
The Motion is filed for condonation of 32 days delay in
filing the above appeal. Sufficient cause is shown for
condoning the delay. There is no case of inaction,
negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the
appellant. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a). Appeal be numbered.
2. Appeal be listed for hearing in July, 2008
subject to numbering.
3. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.
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.