Case Law › High Court › Nma/58/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Nma/58/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. A.t.e. Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai

High Court 28 Jan 2009 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

28 Jan 2009

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/58/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai v. M/S. A.t.e. Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai, 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.58 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3130 OF 2008 The CIT-2 )..Appellants V/s. M/s.ATE Enterprises Ltd., )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellants. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 28.01.2009. PC 1. This is a motion for condoning 828 days delay in filing of the appeal. A perusal of the affidavit in support indicates that the docket was obtained for drafting in on 3.11.2006 but the draft was received in September 2008. A period of more than 1 year & 10 months for drafting an appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable. Hence, 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.