Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karj...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd

High Court 13 Dec 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
13 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow this Application.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

(1) CA No. 6222/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6222 OF 2011 IN TAX APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 3536 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. *** Mr. Kadethankar, Advocate for the applicants. Applicant. Respondent. *** CORAM : P.B. VARALEANDSUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. Dated : 13-12-2017. PER COURT :- .Heard Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh for the respondent. 2.By way of the present application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 685 days caused in filing appeal. Mr. Sharma invited our attention to the grounds raised in the application, more particularly Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5. It is submission of Mr. Sharma that the order passed by Income (2) CA No. 6222/2011 Tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged by way of an application before the Tribunal itself. The application was pending for some time. Subsequently the Department was taking necessary steps. As the Department was under the impression that certain orders would be passed in the application and the application was pending for a considerable period, there was some communication between the authorities. Learned Counsel Mr. Sharma submits that as the appellant raised substantial grounds in the appeal alongwith the substantial questions of law whereby the penalty against the respondent is sought to be recovered, Mr. Sharma submits that as the issue revolves around the revenue to be recovered by way of taxes, the application be allowed and the appellant be permitted to prosecute the appeal on its merit. 3.Learned Counsel Mrs. Deshmukh appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the application. 4.In view of the submissions of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow this Application. Delay is condoned. 5.Notice of appeal be issued to the respondent, returnable on 17.01.2018. (3) CA No. 6222/2011 6.Learned Counsel, Mrs. Deshmukh waives notice for the respondent. 7.Post the appeal for admission and consideration on 17.01.2018. ( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) JUDGE ( P.B. VARALE) JUDGE vdd/ ***
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan