Case LawHigh Court › The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S.booz A...

The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S.booz Allen & Hamilton Inc

High Court 15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S.booz Allen & Hamilton Inc
Date of order
15 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S.booz Allen & Hamilton Inc, 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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4625 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4625 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4625 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2436 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2436 OF 2007 The Director of Income Tax, .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant. Mr.V.B.Patel for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 15th April, 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 195 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice 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, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. Place the Appeal on board for admission in the month of July-2008, subject to numbering. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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