Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8Mumbai v...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8Mumbai v. M/S. Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt.ltd

High Court 30 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8Mumbai v. M/S. Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt.ltd
Date of order
30 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8Mumbai v. M/S. Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

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 JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1879 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1099 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income tax-8Mumbai Vs M/s. Asia Pacific Marbles Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar i/by Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.,& A.P DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: This notice of motion is taken out for condonation of delay of 199 days caused in filing the present appeal. The same is objectedto. However, no reply has been filed. The averments made in theapplication show that delay caused in filing the appeal because somedifferent steps were to be taken by the different branches of thedepartment. 2. We see no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on behalf of the department in support of the notice of motion. We are satisfiedthat sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay of 199days in filing the present appeal. Consequently, notice of motion ismade absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of motion standsdisposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, 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