In Nma/984/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Ciity-Iii, Bombay v. M/S I.c.i.c.i.ltd, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Notice of Motion No.984 of 2003
In
Income Tax Appeal (L) No.255 of 2003
CIT Bombay .. .. Applicant
v/s.
ICICI Bank Ltd. .. .. Respondent
Mr.A.M.Kotangale for applicant.
Ms.Aarti Vissanji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for res.
----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
V.R. KINGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : 1st August 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Kotangale in support of this
Motion. Ms.Vissanji appears for the respondent.
2. The Motion seeks condition of delay of 223
days in filing the Appeal. The ground given is
that the department is undergoing major
restructuring and the assesses are being identified
as per the Municipal limits and thus the case
records are accordingly being transferred from one
charge to other and reassigned. We accept this
explanation so as not to cause any prejudice.
Motion is granted in terms of prayer (a). Delay
condoned. Motion disposed of. Appeal be
numbered.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
-2-
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.)
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, 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.