The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. M/S.bassien Drugs Ltd
High Court
08 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. M/S.bassien Drugs Ltd
Date of order
08 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. M/S.bassien Drugs Ltd, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3578 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3578 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3578 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1847 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1847 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Bassien Drugs Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 8th April, 2008
DATE : 8th April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 615 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. It appears that though the last date for
filing the Appeal was 9.12.2005 the Appeal came to be
filed belatedly on 13.08.2007. We are not satisfied
with the reasons given for condonation of delay. The
reasons given for delay that of getting the draft memo
of Appeal prepared and non-availability of Court fee
stamps etc. does not appear to be justifiable. No
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay.
Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.1847/2007 also stands dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.