The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sheel Gems
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sheel Gems
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sheel Gems, 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
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2257/2008 IN ITXA (L) NO.181/2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2262/2008 IN ITXA (L) NO.180/2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2257/2008 IN ITXA (L) NO.181/2008
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2262/2008 IN ITXA (L) NO.180/2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Sheel Gems .. Respondents
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.Rajesh Poojari i/by M/s.Mint & Conferers for
Respondents.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN&
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 25th September, 2008.
DATE : 25th September, 2008.
DATE : 25th September, 2008.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By
these Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 21 days’ delay caused in filing the
respective Appeals. For the reasons stated in the
affidavits-in-support of the Notices of Motion,
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay,
and there is no case of inaction, negligence or want of
bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the delay
caused in filing the respective Appeals is condoned, and
both the Notices of Motion are made absolute
accordingly.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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.
EaseValue