The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.unique Estate Development Co.ltd
High Court
15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.unique Estate Development Co.ltd
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.unique Estate Development Co.ltd, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.746 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.746 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.746 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2498 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2498 OF 2007
The CIT, Mumbai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Unique Estate Development Co.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mrs.P.P.Bhosale with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant.
None 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 Appellant. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 30 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).
2. Place the Appeal on board for admission in the
month of August-2008, subject to numbering.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.