The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd
High Court
11 Dec 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd
Date of order
11 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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.2482 OF 2007ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1216 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.Vs.M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd...Respondents.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.S.J.Mehta for the Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 12TH DECEMBER,2007.
PC :
1. Heard both parties.
2. This Notice of Motion has been filed for condonationof 60-days delay in filing the main appeal. On perusalof the affidavit in support of the Notice of motion, wefind that the delay has been sought to be explained. Itis contended before us that in December 2005, theprocessing of judicial matters was shifted from the LawMinistry to the Income Tax Department and this hasresulted in several administrative difficulties. Incertain cases all the papers have not been received.The panel counsel were also involved in dealing witholder cases received from the Law Ministry. Taking intoaccount all these facts, we propose to accept the causeshown for condonation of delay subject to levy of costs.Notice of motion is therefore, allowed and the delay infiling the appeal stands condoned subject to payment of
costs of Rs.2500/- which is to be paid directly to therespondents within a period of six weeks from today. Itis made clear that the department will be at liberty torecover the costs from the officer responsible forcausing the delay.
( 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.