The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.cheay Investment (P) Ltd
High Court
03 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.cheay Investment (P) Ltd
Date of order
03 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.cheay Investment (P) Ltd, 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1914 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1914 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1914 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1055 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1055 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Cheay Investment (P) Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr.Percy Pardiwala i/by Dadich & Co.for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd June, 2008
DATE : 3rd June, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 224 days delay caused in filing the
Appeal, which is over and above the prescribed statutory
period of 120 days. Perusal of the affidavit in support
shows that the delay was caused due to non-availability
of Court fee stamps and for other reasons beyond the
control of the Appellant’s office including that of
administrative difficulties and the voluminous work etc.
The aforestated reasons given by the Appellant however
does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient cause
is shown for condonation of delay. Hence, the Notice of
Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of Notice of Motion, the ITXA
(L) No.1055/2007 also stands dismissed.
(A.P.BHANGALE J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(A.P.BHANGALE J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.