In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Shangrila Investment, 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.74 OF 2008ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.74 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1914 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s Shangrila Investment &... RespondentTrading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant.Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/by Raj Darak for Respondent.
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellantand the learned counsel for the repondent. TheMotion is filed for condonation of 341 days delayin filing the above appeal. Perused the affidavitfiled in support of the Notice of Motion. Theimpugned order is dated 28-04-2006. The ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax granted approval on23-08-2006 for filing the appeal. However, theappeal was filed on 22-08-2007. The reasons givenfor the delay in filing the appeal is due to
admnistrative exigencies and the proceduralformalities. 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 Motionis disposed ofaccordingly 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.