The Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Tirupati Fancy Yarn Industries Pvt.Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.R.Ashokan for Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH : 21ST APRIL, 2008 DATEDATEDATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008 : 21ST APRIL, 2008 P.C.P.C.P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared Respondent though served. learned Counsel Appellant undertakes Affidavit-of-service within a today. The By Notice Motion, Appellant seeking condonation 117 days’ caused filing Appeal. Perused Notice Motion Affidavit-in-support thereof. For reasons stated therein sufficient condoning delay. There inaction, negligence bonafide 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 September,2008, subject to numbering. BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (SANTOSH BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (SANTOSH BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (SANTOSH
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.