Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. S...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Saynukta Shah; Trading Co. Ltd

High Court 19 Dec 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Saynukta Shah; Trading Co. Ltd
Date of order
19 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Saynukta Shah; Trading Co. Ltd, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3334 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1915 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Saynukta Shah; Trading Co. Ltd.... Respondent Mr. R.G. Bhat for the Appellants. Mr. Jitendra Singh with Mr. K. Gopal for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 P.C. P.C. . This is a notice of motion for condoning the delay of 261 days in filing the main tax appeal. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the notice of Motion, we find that the file was sent to the panel counsel for drafting the appeal memo on 8.11.2005 and the appeal memo was receievd on 14.8.2006. In our view, the delay period between 8.11.2005 and 14.8.2006 has not been properly explained. In the circumstances, sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay. Hence, Notice of Motion is dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan