The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Classic Corporation
High Court
09 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Classic Corporation
Date of order
09 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Classic Corporation, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.325 OF 2008ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.325 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1794 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs.
M/s Classic Corporation... Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for AppellantNone for Respondent
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2008
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellantand learned counsel for the respondent. TheMotion is filed for condonation of 270 days delayin filing the above appeal. Perused the affidavitfiled in support of the Notice of Motion. Theimpugned order is dated 13.06.2006. The ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax granted approval on30th October,2006 for filing the appeal. However,the appeal was filed on 8th August, 2007. Thereasons given for the delay in filing the appeal
is drafting of appeal memo and non availability ofcourt fee stamps. The reasons given are totallyunsatisfactory. No case is made out for condoningthe delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed with noorder as to costs.
2)Notice of Motionis disposed of
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.