The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr.samip Shah
High Court
09 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr.samip Shah
Date of order
09 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr.samip Shah, the High Court (2007) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1556 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 770 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
Mr.Samip Shah ,,, Respondent
Mr.S.M. Shah for Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: OCTOBER 09, 2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: OCTOBER 09, 2007
P.C.
P.C.
. There is delay of 370 days in rpeferring the
appeal. The order dated 24.8.2004 was received on
21.12.2004. The consent for filing appeal was
granted on 7.4.2005. The last date for filing the
appeal was 19.4.2005. The papers were forwarded to
Ministry of Law after 13.4.2005. It is contended
that after January, 2006 as the Panel counsel
refused to take the work of Income Tax Department,
the new panel was constituted on January, 2006. The
appeal is filed on 27.4.2006. There is no
explanation for the period between January, 2006 to
27.4.2006. In our opinion, the cause shown would
not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, Motion
dismissed.
((-2-))
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.