Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Shr...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Shri.rajkumar Pamnani

High Court 10 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Shri.rajkumar Pamnani
Date of order
10 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 v. Shri.rajkumar Pamnani, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1494 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1494 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1494 OF 2006 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.794 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.794 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.794 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19 .. Appellant Vs. Shri.Rajkumar Pamnani .. Respondent Mr.R.G.Bhat for the Appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 10th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 28 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 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). (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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