In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Audco (India) Ltd, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4879 OF 2007ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4879 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1607 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs.M/s Audco (India) Ltd.... Respondent
Mrs. P.P. Bhosale for Appellant.None for Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2008
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellant.The Motion is filed for condonation of 943 daysdelay in filing the above appeal. Perused theaffidavit filed in support of the Notice ofMotion. The impugned order is dated 18-03-2004.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax grantedapproval on 1/12/2004 for filing the appeal.However, the appeal was filed on 16-7-2007 i.e.after lapse of two years and six month. Thereasons given for the delay in filing the appeal
is due to non availability of Court fee stamps.The reasons given are totally unsatisfactory. Nocase is made out for condoning the delay. Noticeof Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.
accordingly with no order as to costs.
( DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.