Case Law › High Court › The Cit v. M/S.chandurkar Investments P....

The Cit v. M/S.chandurkar Investments P.ltd

High Court 25 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

25 Feb 2008

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit v. M/S.chandurkar Investments P.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed.

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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2365 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1137 OF 2007 The CIT ..Appellant Versus M/s.Chandurkar Investments P.Ltd.,..Respondent ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 25.02.2008 PC 1. This is a Motion for condoning 496 days delay in filing of the main appeal. A perusal of the affidavit-in-support indicates that the scrutiny report was received in the office of jurisdictional CIT on 28.10.2005 but the file was sent for drafting the appeal memo after more than one year on 20.12.2006. In our view, the delay caused between the aforesaid period has not been explained. Therefore, the cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, Motion stands dismissed. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1137 OF 2007 . As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.