In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Tata Electric Company, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4859 OF 2007ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4859 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1465 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs.TATA Electric Company... Respondent
Mr. Prashant Uchil for Appellant.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2008
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellantand the learned counsel for the repondent. TheMotion is filed for condonation of 1030 days delayin filing the above appeal. Perused the affidavitfiled in support of the Notice of Motion. Theimpugned order is dated 05-03-2004. The ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax granted approval on24/8/2004 for filing the appeal. However, theappeal was filed on 12-7-2007 i.e. after almostthree years. The reasons given for the delay in
filing the appeal is due to preparation of Memo ofAppeal and non availability of court fee stamps.The reasons given are totally unsatisfactory. Nocase is made out for condoning the delay. Noticeof Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.
accordingly with no order as to costs.
( DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
( J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.