The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. M/S.king Construction
High Court
02 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. M/S.king Construction
Date of order
02 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. M/S.king Construction, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3611 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3611 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3611 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1903 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1903 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-22 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.King Construction ..Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 562 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. We are not satisfied with the reasons given
for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is made
out for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion
stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.1903/2007 also stands dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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