TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3 OF 2006 INTEREST The Commisioner of Income Tax v. M/s.Mukund Global Finance Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant. None for the Respondent. ..Appellant ..Respondent CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM BORA, JJ. SANTOSH 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 Appellant. None appeared Respondent, though served. Affidavit service record. By Notice Motion, Appellant seeking condonation 125 days’ caused filing Appeals. Perused thereof. Notice Motion Affidavit-in-support For reasons stated therein sufficient condoning delay. There inaction, negligence bonafide Appellant. Hence, Notices Motion are made absolute in terms of prayer clause(a).
#2. Place the above Appeals on board for admission in the month of August,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.