The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.chika Overseas Ltd
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.chika Overseas Ltd
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.chika Overseas Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.358 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.52 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Chika Overseas Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.S.Rao for the appellant
None for the respondent
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008
DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008
P.C.:
1. None appears for the respondent though
served. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is
seeking condonation of 672 days’ delay caused in
filing the Appeal .
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the
Notice of Motion. It appears that though the last
date for filing the Appeal was 04.04.06 and the
2
Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for
filing an Appeal on 17.10.05 the Appeal came to be
filed belatedly on 08.01.08.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given
for condonation of delay. The reasons given for
delay is that of getting the draft memo of Appeal
prepared and due to administrative exigencies and
the procedural formalities etc. do not appear to
be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out
for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion
stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of
Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.52 of 2008 also
stands dismissed.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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.
EaseValue