The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City Vii v. M/S Searle (India) Ltd
High Court
07 Sep 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City Vii v. M/S Searle (India) Ltd
Date of order
07 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City Vii v. M/S Searle (India) Ltd, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 392 OF 2011ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.524 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City VII.. AppellantVs.M/s Searle (India) Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr. Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant.Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for the Respondent.
P.C.
This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Revenue seeking the condonation of delay of 419 days in filing the Appeal and also for setting aside the order dated 16.06.2009. The Motion is opposed by the counsel for the Respondent Assessee. Perusal of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion shows that no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay. However, looking to the Revenue involved in the Appeal, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the delay is condoned subject to payment of
906 NMA 392.11 .doc
costs. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The Appellant to remove the office objection within two weeks from today.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, 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.