The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.vijay Silk House (Varanasi) Ltd
High Court
15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.vijay Silk House (Varanasi) 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.vijay Silk House (Varanasi) 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.2502 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2502 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2502 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1357 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1357 OF 2007
The CIT, Mumbai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Vijay Silk House (Varanasi) Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gulpta with Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant.
Mr.Sameer Dalal for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 15th April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 20 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. It is also pointed out by
the learned Counsel for the Appellant that though the
tax effect involved in this case is less than Rs.4
lakhs, there are two decisions in favour of the
Appellant-revenue. Hence, we are inclined to condone
the delay caused in filing the Appeal. Notice of Motion
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. Place the Appeal on board for admission in the
month of June-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.