The Cit v. M/S.sandoz Textiles & Trading Ltd
High Court
25 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.sandoz Textiles & Trading Ltd
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.sandoz Textiles & Trading 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.2849 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.873 OF 2007
The CIT ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Sandoz Textiles & Trading Ltd...Respondent
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.J.D.Mistry with Raj Darak for the respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 25.02.2008
PC
1. This is a Motion for condoning 426 days delay in
filing of the main appeal. A perusal of the
affidavit-in-support indicates that the Chief CIT
granted approval for filing the appeal on 1.2.2006
and the file was thereafter sent for drafting. The
final draft was received on 19.2.2007. A period of
more than one year for drafting appeal memo cannot
be said to be reasonable. Therefore, the cause
shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence,
Motion stands dismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.873 OF 2007
. As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.