Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar v. Heard The Learned Counsel For The
High Court
17 Apr 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar v. Heard The Learned Counsel For The
Date of order
17 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar v. Heard The Learned Counsel For The, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
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 JURISDICTION.
NOTICE OF MOTION No.80/2004.IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) No. 18/2004.
Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar
..Appellant.
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner ofInspector Tax (Spl Range 2) Respondent.
Mr Bhushan V. Mahadik for the Appellant.Mr Ashok Kotangale, Advocate, for theRespondent.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:17th April, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.
Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2.
Perused affidavit in support of the
Notice of Motion seeking condonation of 210days delay. Sufficient cause is made out forcondoning delay in filing the above appeal.There is no case of inaction, negligence orwant of bona fide on the part of the
appellant. Hence, the notice of motion is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(V.C. DAGA,J.)
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,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