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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.p.& O. Nedlloyd (India) Lpvt

High Court 27 Feb 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.p.& O. Nedlloyd (India) Lpvt
Date of order
27 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.p.& O. Nedlloyd (India) Lpvt, 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

(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3344 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1329 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. M/s.P.& O. Nedlloyd (India) LPvt. Ltd..Respondent Mr. R.Ashokan and Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co., for the respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY,2008 R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: . Considering the cause shown the same would amount to sufficient cause. Hence delay condoned subject to the Appellant paying to the respondents costs quantified at Rs.7,500/- within 12 weeks from today and also removing the office objections, if any, within 12 weeks from today. The period of 12 weeks is granted as the Revenue has expressed some difficulties in getting the orders to pay the costs. Earlier we used to grant six weeks time. We have extended the period to 12 seeks with the clear understanding that no application for extension will be entertained. Office to register the Appeal. (-2-) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, 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