Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/Sadvance Power Display Systems Limited, Mumbai

High Court 08 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/Sadvance Power Display Systems Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
08 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/Sadvance Power Display Systems Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A.(L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2.In this view of the matter, all the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order a...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2562 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/sAdvance Power Display Systems Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2564 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusEnercon (India) Limited..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2565 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2566 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.ATV Projects India Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2567 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Azofen Private Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : 1.These appeals are barred by limitation. Admittedly, no notices of motion are taken out. There is no prayer for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P)Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we haveheld in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A.(L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2.In this view of the matter, all the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs. (V.C. Daga, 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