The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited
High Court
02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S.aftek Infosys Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, all 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2355 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Aftek Infosys Limited..Respondent.
..Respondent.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2356 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Bramhadev Holding & Trading Ltd., Mumbai..Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2357 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Berila Chemicals & Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai..Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2358 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusM/s.Avarsekar & Sons Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Dhananjay Athavale for the appellant.None for the respondent in ITXA (L) No.2356, 2357 & 2358/08.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2[nd] July, 2009
P.C. :
notices of motion for condoning the delay caused in filing these appeals have been taken out by the revenue. Since there are no notices of motion for condonation of delay, the appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
2.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that though there is a prayer for condonation of delay in all these appeals, however no material facts and/or particulars are disclosed in the appeal memo much less a statement on oath giving explanation is filed on record.
3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, all 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