The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. Estate Of Late Mrs. Manek Kripalani
High Court
02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. Estate Of Late Mrs. Manek Kripalani
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai v. Estate Of Late Mrs. Manek Kripalani, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2190 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2671 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusEstate of Late Mrs. Manek Kripalani..Respondent.
Ms.Anuradha Mane for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The delay in filing the appeal is of 582 days. We were taken through the affidavit. No material facts and/or particulars giving sufficient cause for condoning delay is made out. The delay is not properly explained. The notice of motion is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs.
2.Needless to mention that in view of rejection of the notice of motion, the appeal papers be consigned to the record department.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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