The Directorate Of Income Tax v. Otters Club
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Directorate Of Income Tax v. Otters Club
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Directorate Of Income Tax v. Otters Club, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1439 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1439 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1439 OF 2006
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.686 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.686 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.686 OF 2006
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1440 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1440 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1440 OF 2006
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.690 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.690 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.690 OF 2006
The Directorate of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
Otters Club .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.P.F.Kaka alongwith Mr.A.K.Jasani & Mr.P.C.Tripathy
for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 25th September, 2008
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
these Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 166 days’ delay caused in filing the
respective Appeals. For the reasons stated in the
affidavits-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, both the
Notices of Motion are made absolute, in the sense, the
delay caused in filing both the aforesaid Appeals is
condoned.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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.