The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Mehta & Merlin Production
High Court
09 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Mehta & Merlin Production
Date of order
09 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Mehta & Merlin Production, the High Court (2007) 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.
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1622 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 535 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Mehta & Merlin Production.... Respondent
Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: OCTOBER 09, 2007
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: OCTOBER 09, 2007
P.C.
P.C.
. There is delay of 328 days. The order of ITAT
dated 27.7.2004 was received on 5.1.2005. The CIT
granted approval for filing appeal on 27.4.2005 and
the matter was sent to Ministry of Law on 28.4.2005.
It is then set out that the matter was put up before
the Ministry of Law for fresh draft on 19.7.2005.
The draft was received on 1.12.2005. The appeal was
not filed. The matter was again put up to Panel
counsel on 5.1.2006 and the same was received on
22.2.2006. The appeal was filed on 29.3.2006. In
our opinion, the cause shown would not amount to
sufficient cause. Hence, motion dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.