APPEAL (L) NO.757 OF 2008 INCOME The Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/s.Tube Craft
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.R.G.Bhat for the Appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistry i/b.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. ..Respondent CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. BORA, JJ. SANTOSH SANTOSH BORA, JJ. DATEDATEDATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008 : 21ST APRIL, 2008 : 21ST APRIL, 2008 P.C.P.C.P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By Notices Motion, Appellant seeking condonation 75 days’ caused filing Appeals. Perused Notices Motion Affidavits-in-support thereof. For reasons stated therein sufficient condoning delay. There inaction, negligence bonafide Appellant. Hence, the Notices of Motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
#2. Place all the above Appeals 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.