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)
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.