The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai City-Iii, Mumbai v. Shri Navin R. Kamani, Mumbai
High Court
26 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai City-Iii, Mumbai v. Shri Navin R. Kamani, Mumbai
Date of order
26 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mumbai City-Iii, Mumbai v. Shri Navin R. Kamani, Mumbai, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: Heard the learned counsel for the that whether the case is of the year 2001 or 2007.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.
NOTICE OF MOTION No. 1951/2003.IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING)No.645/2003.
The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Mumbai City-III, Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.
Shri Navin R. Kamani, Mumbai ..Respondent.
Mr Ashok Kotangale with Mr P. S. Sahadevani/b T.C. Kaushik for the Appellant.
Ms Bina Pillai i/b D.M. Harish & Co. for theRespondent.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:26TH MARCH, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.
Heard the learned counsel for the
that whether the case is of the year 2001 or
2007.
2.In the above matter, the appellant was
in spite of the same there is no better
affidavit justifying condonation of delay.
3.
Today, the learned counsel for the
matter and states that they are unable to file
any affidavit with regard to the above.
4.In view of the aforesaid fact, Wedismiss this Notice of Motion as there is no
proper affidavit comingforth justifying
condonation of delay.
(V.C.DAGA,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