The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.glindia Ltd
High Court
16 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.glindia Ltd
Date of order
16 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.glindia 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1441 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1441 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1441 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2658 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.GLINDIA Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.D.Kango for the Appellant.
Mr.S.H.Merchant with Mr.Lijan P.P.i/by MM Legal Venture
for the Respondent
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE : 16th June, 2008
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this
Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation
of 454 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. Perused
the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. The
Appeal is against the ITAT’s order dated 10.3.2006. It
appears that though the Chief CIT had granted approval
for filing the Appeal on 25.8.2006 the Appeal came to be
filed belatedly on 15.11.2007. We are not satisfied
with the reasons given for condonation of delay. The
reasons given for delay that of getting the draft memo
of Appeal prepared and the other reasons beyond the
control of the Appellant’s office including the
administrative difficulties etc. does not appear to be
justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for
condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands
dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.2658/2007 also stands dismissed.
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.
EaseValue