The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.nandlal Kilachand Investment Limited, Mumbai
High Court
21 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.nandlal Kilachand Investment Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
21 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.nandlal Kilachand Investment Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.In this view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2240 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2241 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Nandlal Kilachand Investment Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Mr.S.J. Mehta for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009.
P.C. :
1.It is found that these appeals are delayed by 579 days. Neither any notice of motion seeking condonation of delay is taken out nor there is any 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 Excisereported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009 that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.In this view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)(V.C. Daga, 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