Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. A...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Asian Electronics Ltd

High Court 13 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Asian Electronics Ltd
Date of order
13 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. Asian Electronics Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: If either cost is not paid or office objections are not removed within six weeks, Appeal to stand dismissed for non prosecution, without further reference to this court.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1915 OF 2007 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1915 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1056 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1056 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant Versus M/s. Asian Electronics Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellants. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 CORAM: F.I. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. . Heard parties. . Considering the delay and the cause shown in the affidavit in support of the Motion, the same amounts to sufficient cause. Hence, delay can be condoned subject to cost being imposed. . In the light of the above, delay condoned subject to Appellants’ paying cost to the Respondents quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as a condition precedent. The cost to be paid within six weeks from today. The Office objections, if any to be removed within six weeks from today. If either cost is not paid or office objections are not removed within six weeks, Appeal to stand dismissed for non prosecution, without further reference to this court. If there is negligence on the part of the officer/s, then it will be open to the Union of India to recover the cost from such officer/s. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan