In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. M/S. Cifco Ltd, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Delay is explained resonablyand sufficiently in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion.Consequently, the application for condonation of delay of 56 days infiling the appeal is allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.2719 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1029 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai...
Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. CIFCO Ltd.--
..Respondent
Shri Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.Ms P.V. Shukla i/by Shri S.G. Dalal for the Respondent.
--
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & A.P. DESHPANDE, J DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008
P.C.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for theparties. There is no serious objection for condonation of delay of 56days in filing the Income Tax Appeal. Delay is explained resonablyand sufficiently in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion.Consequently, the application for condonation of delay of 56 days infiling the appeal is allowed. The delay is condoned. Notice ofMotion accordingly stands disposed of.
2.Appeal to be listed for hearing on admission on 29[th]September, 2008.
CHIEF JUSTICE
A.P. DESHPANDE, 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