Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Set In...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Set India Limited

High Court 09 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Set India Limited
Date of order
09 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Set India Limited, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1683 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 877 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus SET India Limited ... Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango for Appellant. Mr. P.C. Tripathi and Mr. Dinesh Vyas for Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: JANUARY 09, 2008 CORAM: F.I. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 09, 2008 P.C. P.C. . This is a notice of motion for condoning delay of 493 days in filing the main tax appeal. Office has subseuently calculated the delay as 445 days. Be that as it may. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the notice of Motion, we find that the file was sent to the Law Ministry for drafting the appeal memo on 24.10.2004 and thereafter the appeal was ultimately received on 7.4.2006. In our view, the aforesaid period of more than 1.1/2 years for drafting appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable. In the circumstances, sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay. Hence, Notice of Motion is dismissed. ((-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