Nma/561/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. Shri Nitin H. Parikh
High Court
16 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/561/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. Shri Nitin H. Parikh
Date of order
16 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/561/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. Shri Nitin H. Parikh, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.561 OF 2008IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.561 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.346 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.346 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Nitin H. Parikh ..Respondent.
Mr.R.G.Bhat for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent, though served. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 340 days delay in filing the
above appeal. Perused the affidavit filed in support
of the Notice of Motion. The order of I.T.A.T. is
dated 28/6/2006. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
granted approval on 5/12/2006 for filing the appeal.
However, the appeal was filed on 7/2/2008. The reasons
given for the delay in filing the appeal is that there
was delay in getting the draft appeal memo and
insufficiency of stamp papers. The reasons given are
totally unsatisfactory. No case is made out for
condoning the delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.