The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Aristocrat Marketing Ltd
High Court
06 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Aristocrat Marketing Ltd
Date of order
06 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Aristocrat Marketing Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As the notice of motion for condonation of delay isdismissed, appeal is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2548 OF 2005WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1053 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income tax. ..Appellant.Vs.M/s. Aristocrat Marketing Ltd...Respondent.
Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Ms.P.P. Bhosale and P.S.Sahadevanfor the Appellant.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 28TH JANUARY,2008.
PC :
1. This is a notice of motion for condonation of 888days delay in filing the main appeal. On perusal of theaffidavit in support we find that the Chief CIT grantedapproval on 21.3.2003 but the appeal was filed on29.8.2005. No dates have been given relating to theevents which occurred between the aforesaid period. Inour view, therefore, the cause shown cannot be said tobe sufficient cause and hence, notice of motion standsdismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1053 OF 2005
1. As the notice of motion for condonation of delay isdismissed, appeal is also dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO, 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