In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Numero Uno International, 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.4491 OF 2007ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4491 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.2268 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs.
M/s Numero Uno International... Respondent
Mr. A.D. Kango with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan forAppellant.None for Respondent.
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellantand the learned counsel for the repondent. TheMotion is filed for condonation of 859 days delayin filing the above appeal. Perused the affidavitfiled in support of the Notice of Motion. Theimpugned order is dated 16-12-2004. The affidavitin support does not disclose that when the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax granted approval forfiling the appeal. However, the appeal was filed
on 28-09-2007. The reasons given for the delay infiling the appeal is due to processing of matter,appointment of panel counsel and non availabilityof stamp papers. 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 Motion
is 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.