The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kamadgiri Synthetics Ltd
High Court
13 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kamadgiri Synthetics 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. Kamadgiri Synthetics 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. 874 OF 2007
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 874 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 252 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 252 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 252 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kamadgiri Synthetics Ltd.... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterjee with Ms. P.P. Bhosale and Mr.
P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellants.
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.)
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.