The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs.seema S.abrol
High Court
10 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs.seema S.abrol
Date of order
10 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs.seema S.abrol, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.889 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.889 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.889 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.480 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
Mrs.Seema S.Abrol .. Respondent
Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE : 10th June, 2008
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
None appears for the Respondents though served. The
learned Counsel for the Appellant undertakes to file
affidavit of service within a period of one week from
today. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is
seeking condonation of 83 days’ delay caused in filing
the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the
affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, sufficient
cause is made out for condonation of delay, and there is
no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on
the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion
is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(A.V.NIRGUDE, 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.
EaseValue