The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.naman Developers Pvt.ltd
High Court
28 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.naman Developers Pvt.ltd
Date of order
28 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.naman Developers Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
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 JURISDICITON
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2379 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1003 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Applicant.
Versus
M/s.Naman Developers Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P. Bhosale for the
applicant.
Ms.Preeti Shah for the respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :
1. There is a delay of 288 days in filing the
appeal. There is affidavit in support of notice of
motion explaining as to why appeal could not be
filed in time. From the record, it is seen that the
major delay occurred in the department of law.
2. The respondents have filed their reply
opposing the condonation of delay. We have
considered the facts of the case and also that the
tax effect is more than Rs.29 lacs. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion
in the peculiar facts of this case, the cause shown
would amount to sufficient cause. Hence, delay
condoned.
3. The notice of motion is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a). Office to register the
appeal.
(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.