Case LawHigh Court › Nma/56/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Nma/56/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. Gazdaer Pvt. Ltd

High Court 28 Jan 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/56/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. Gazdaer Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
28 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/56/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. Gazdaer Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.56 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2869 OF 2008 The CIT-2 )..Appellants V/s. M/s.Gazdar Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellants. Mr.F.Andhyarjina Sr.Counsel with Pallavi Divekar for respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 28.01.2009. PC 1. This is a motion for condoning 574 days delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the affidavit in support it is seen that the matter was sent for drafting appeal memo to the Panel Counsel on 29.1.2007. The draft was finally received in September 2008. A period of more than 1 year and 8 months for drafting appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable. In view of tax effect, we have requested the Counsel to file an additional affidavit, but the Counsel declined to file additional affidavit. In the circumstances, cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Therefore, motion stands dismissed. Consequently, appeal papers to be filed. Refund of court fees as per rules. (R.S.Mohite,J) (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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan