The Cit-10 v. M/S.common Effluent Treatment
High Court
02 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-10 v. M/S.common Effluent Treatment
Date of order
02 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-10 v. M/S.common Effluent Treatment, the High Court (2008) 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3198 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3198 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3198 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO.2224 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO.2224 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO.2224 OF 2008
The CIT-10 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Common Effluent Treatment
Plant (Thane Belapur) Association .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Ms.Aasifa Khan for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd December, 2008
DATE : 2nd December, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this
Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation
of 35 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. For the
reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion, sufficient cause is made out for condonation
of delay, and there is no case of inaction, negligence
or want of bonafide 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.)
(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