The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.al-Kabeer Exports (P) Limited
High Court
07 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.al-Kabeer Exports (P) Limited
Date of order
07 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.al-Kabeer Exports (P) Limited, the High Court (2010) 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.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2794 OF 2009
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.4021 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Al-Kabeer Exports (P) Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Vinod Gupta for the appellant.
Mr.Balasaheb G. Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 7[th] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The Notice of Motion seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On 9[th] July 2009, the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground that though the appeal was barred by limitation, no Motion for condonation has been taken out. But apart from this, the Division Bench observed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2009 (238) ELT 705 (SC)], this Court had held in CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. [Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 of 2008
decided on 8[th] July 2009] that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the fact that the appeal has already been dismissed on 20[th] July 2009 both on the ground that at that stage no Motion had been taken out and that this Court has no power to condone the delay under Section 260A, this Motion shall have to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.