The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All. India Plastic Mnfrs. Assoc
High Court
18 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All. India Plastic Mnfrs. Assoc
Date of order
18 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The All. India Plastic Mnfrs. Assoc, the High Court (2007) 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.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 148 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 39 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
The All. India Plastic Mnfrs. Assoc. Respondent
Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellants.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for Respondnet.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. There is delay of 555 days. There is affidavit
in support of the motion. The order was received by
Director of Income Tax (E) on 10.03.2004. Scrutiny
report was called for only on 05.04.2004. The draft
was sent to Law Ministry on 18.6.2004. The Panel
Counsel drafted appeal memo on 24.3.2005. Once
again the draft was sent to Law Ministry on
24.8.2005. It is set out that there was
unavailability of the stamp papers and the same is
received on 27.12.2005. The appeal was filed on
12.01.2006. There is no explanation for the said
delay. In our opinion, the cause shown would not
amount to sufficient cause. Hence, motion
dismissed.
((-2-))
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.