Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.trident Shipping Agencies Pvt.ltd

High Court 07 Feb 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.trident Shipping Agencies Pvt.ltd
Date of order
07 Feb 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.trident Shipping Agencies Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2007) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4445 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4445 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4445 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2618 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2618 OF 200 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant V/s M/s.Trident Shipping Agencies Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant. Mr.S.E.Dastoor, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nirag Sheth i/by M/s.Rajesh & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN& CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 7th February, 2007. DATE : 7th February, 2007. DATE : 7th February, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant (Revenue) is seeking condonation of 463 days delay caused in filing the Appeal. 2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. The affidavit very clearly admits that the last date for filing the Appeal was 2.9.2005. Mr.Rao, the learned Counsel for the Appellant on instructions from his client, states that the Law Ministry ceased to take care of the matter and it was left with the concerned Department to take care of the matter in view of the policy decision. Mr.Rao conceded that from September-2005 onwards it was the concern of the Income Tax Department to pursue this matter. The affidavit is totally silent and there is no reasonable explanation given with regard to the delay caused in filing the Appeal from Septmber-2005 til December-2006 which is more than 15 months. Notice of Motion is totally devoid of merits and hence stands dismissed. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan