Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.in...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.indian Express News

High Court 10 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

10 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.indian Express News, 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.

( 1 ) 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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1827 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1827 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1827 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.558 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.558 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Indian Express News .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr.Vinayak Shete i/by Ms.Poorvi Kamani for Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 10th 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 17 days delay caused in filing the Appeal. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. For the reasons stated threin, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. 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). (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, 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.