Case LawHigh Court › The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes

The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes

High Court 15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes
Date of order
15 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes, 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.279/2007 IN ITXA (L) 44/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.279/2007 IN ITXA (L) 44/2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.280/2007 IN ITXA (L) 43/2007NOTICE OF MOTION NO.281/2007 IN ITXA (L) 42/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.280/2007 IN ITXA (L) 43/2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.281/2007 IN ITXA (L) 42/2007 The CIT, Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Regal Shoes .. Respondent Mrs.P.P.Bhosale with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant. Mr. A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 15th April, 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By these Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 181 days’ delay caused in filing each of the Appeals. For the reasons stated in the affidavits-in-support of each of the Notices 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, all the three Notices of Motion in the respective Appeals are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) respectively. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan