Case Law › High Court › The Cit v. M/S.killick Nixon Ltd

The Cit v. M/S.killick Nixon Ltd

High Court 21 Oct 2008 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

21 Oct 2008

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit v. M/S.killick Nixon 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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2885/2008 IN ITXAL NO.184/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2885/2008 IN ITXAL NO.184/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2885/2008 IN ITXAL NO.184/2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2887/2008 IN ITXAL NO.185/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2887/2008 IN ITXAL NO.185/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2887/2008 IN ITXAL NO.185/2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2888/2008 IN ITXAL NO.186/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2888/2008 IN ITXAL NO.186/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2888/2008 IN ITXAL NO.186/2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2889/2008 IN ITXAL NO.187/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2889/2008 IN ITXAL NO.187/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2889/2008 IN ITXAL NO.187/2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2890/2008 IN ITXAL NO.188/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2890/2008 IN ITXAL NO.188/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2890/2008 IN ITXAL NO.188/2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2891/2008 IN ITXAL NO.189/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2891/2008 IN ITXAL NO.189/2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2891/2008 IN ITXAL NO.189/2008 The CIT .. Appellants Vs. M/s.Killick Nixon Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.Suresh Kumar i/by Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellants. Mr.Sanjeev M.Shah for the Respondents. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 21st October, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By these Notices of Motion, the Appellants are seeking condonation of 37 days’ delay caused in filing the respective Appeals. The learned Counsel for the Respondents strongly opposes. However, for the reasons stated in the affidavits-in-support of the respective 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 Appellants. Hence, all the aforesaid Notices of Motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) respectively. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,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.