In Nma/721/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-V, Mumbai v. M/S. Grasim Indus. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motionthe appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.721 OF 2004WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.465 of 2002The Commissioer of Income TaxMumbai City-V,Mumbai.... AppellantV/sM/s Grasim Industries Ltd. ... RespondentMr.P.S.Sahaderan for AppellantMr.J.D.Mistry with Mrs.R.V.Thakkar i/b Dave Girishand Co. for the RespondentCORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNANAND A.P.BHANGALE,JJDATED: JUNE 2, 2008P.C.:-1. Heard the learned Advocates for the Appellant andRespondent.2. By this Notice of Motion the Appellant ischallenging the order dated 31-3-2000 passed by the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master dismissing theabove appeal for non removal of office objections. TheNotice of Motion is taken out on 5-3-2004 i.e. afterlapse of 4 years and 4 months. It appears that delayhas been condoned on 10-1-2002. Even thereafter almosta period of 2 years no steps have been taken. No
sufficient cause is made out. Hence Notice of Motionstands dismissed.
3. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motionthe appeal stands dismissed.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J)
(A.P.BHANGALE,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.
EaseValue