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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.aarti Drugs Ltd

High Court 25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.aarti Drugs Ltd
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.aarti Drugs Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 8 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2217 OF 200 8 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2217 OF 200 8 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2217 OF 200 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2464 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2464 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2464 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant V/s M/s.Aarti Drugs Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the for the Appellant. Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 25th September, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 220 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay, and there is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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