Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-13 v. Shr...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-13 v. Shri Devji Nenshi Palani

High Court 17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-13 v. Shri Devji Nenshi Palani
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-13 v. Shri Devji Nenshi Palani, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

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.433 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.136 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-13..Appellant Vs. Shri Devji Nenshi Palani ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ.DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008 SANTOSH BORA, JJ. 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 2 years 26 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, sufficient cause is made out for 2 condonation of delay, and there is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to serve copy of the Memo of Appeal on the respondents. Place the Appeal on board for admission in the month of July, 2008, subject to numbering. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, 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