The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.spectrum Business Support Ltd
High Court
16 Jun 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.spectrum Business Support Ltd
Date of order
16 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.spectrum Business Support Ltd, 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1668/2008 IN ITXA(L) NO.477 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1669/2008 IN ITXA(L) NO.476 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1670/2008 IN ITXA(L) NO.465 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1671/2008 IN ITXA(L) NO.475 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1672/2008 IN ITXA(L) NO.464 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1668/2008 IN
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1669/2008 IN
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1670/2008 IN
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1671/2008 IN
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1672/2008 IN
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Spectrum Business Support Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE : 16th June, 2008
DATE : 16th June, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
None appears for the Respondent though served. By these
Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation
of 245 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, all the
Notices of Motion are made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a).
(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(A.V.NIRGUDE, 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