The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Vip Industries Ltd
High Court
12 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Vip Industries Ltd
Date of order
12 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Vip Industries Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 710 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1683 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. VIP Industries Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Appellant.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. There is delay of 372 days in preferring the
appeal. There is an affidavit in support of the
motion. After the order was received in the office
of the Commissioner, Central III on 3.8.2004, the
file was forwarded to the Law Ministry on
21.10.2004. It appears that the draft appeal memo
was received by the department on 9.11.2005 and the
paper book on 30.11.2005. The appeal was filed on
2.12.2005. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, they have explained the cause. It is
also pointed out that the tax incidence is very high
and therefore, pray for condonation of the delay.
. On behalf of the respondents the learned counsel
((-2-))
points out that there is no explanation whatsoever
for the delay between 21.10.2004 and 30.11.2005. We
have taken note of the fact that earlier the filing
of appeals was in the hands of the Ministry of Law,
Mumbai. That practice has since been discontinued
as the delay was being occasioned at that end.
Otherwise, in so far as department is concerned, we
find that they were proceeding with the matters with
due diligence. Considering the above, the cause
shown would amount to sufficient cause. Hence,
delay condoned. Office to register the appeal.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.