The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.walson Woodburn Wire Die
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.walson Woodburn Wire Die
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.walson Woodburn Wire Die, 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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.494 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.250 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Walson Woodburn Wire Die
P.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant
Mr.H.Rai for the respondent
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008
DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 404 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal challenging the order dated 27.07.06 of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the
Notice of Motion. The affidavit in support does
2
not even mention the date on which the Commissioner
of Income Tax granted approval. It appears that
the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 31.01.08.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given
for condonation of delay. The reasons given for
the delay is that of getting the draft memo of
Appeal prepared and non-availability of Court fee
stamps etc. do not appear to be justifiable. No
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of
delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of
Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 250 of 2008 also
stands dismissed.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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