The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur v. M/S R.j. Buildcon Pvt Ltd., Pune
High Court
15 Jun 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur v. M/S R.j. Buildcon Pvt Ltd., Pune
Date of order
15 Jun 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur v. M/S R.j. Buildcon Pvt Ltd., Pune, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7467 OF 2018IN ITAST/16393/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPURVERSUSM/S R.J. BUILDCON PVT LTD., PUNE
Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate for the applicant
P.C. :-
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.DATED :15.06.2018
.The learned counsel appearing for theapplicant/appellant by inviting our attention to theorder passed by the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal submittedthat the tribunal has given decisions in four appeals bycommon judgment and order dated 30.11.2017. There was twosets of appeal i.e. Appeal Nos.1370/2015 and 1371/2015 .Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel submitted that thoughthe applicant/appellant filed an appeal challenging theorder of the ITAT in the appeal No.1370 and 1371 andappeal No.23/2016 inadvertently the appeal against theappeal No.22/2016 remains to be filed. Mr. Alok Sharma,Learend counsel submitted that the delay in filing theappeal was purely an over sight and for bonafide reasons.Mr. Sharma, learned counsel also submitted that these
appeals are pending for admission and they are filed andregistered as appeal St.No.15164/2018 and 15106/2018 etc.
2.In view of the submissions of the Mr. Sharma,learned counsel and for the reasons stated in theapplication, in our opinion the cause of delay isexplained by the learned counsel is just and proper andbonafide reasons. Resultantly the application is allowed.Delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]
[PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]
VishalK/ca7467.18
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.