Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAIversusSIEMENS LIMITED - 2579/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2008-09)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 62‑day delay in filing an income‑tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, Siemens Ltd., opposed the application. The Court examined the delay and applied the settled principles governing condonation of delay applications. Finding the reasons satisfactory, the Court ordered that the delay be condoned. Consequently, the application was allowed, office objections were to be removed within eight weeks, and the appeal was to be listed for admission. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the 62‑day delay in filing the income‑tax appeal under Section 260A should be condoned
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income‑Tax Appeal
- Section 260A
- procedural law
Judgment
313 TO 314.IA2954_2026.DOC
2026:BHC-OS:19438-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2954 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 14411 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2956 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 14431 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2961 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 14427 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3085 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 14410 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai … Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Siemens Ltd. … Respondent
_________
Mr. P.A. Narayanan for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 28 AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
1. By this Interim Application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is opposed by Mr.
Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. We have perused the averments made in the application. Considering the
period of delay and the settled principles of law governing applications for
condonation of delay, in our opinion, it is appropriate that the delay is condoned.
Page 1 of 2
28 August, 2026
313 TO 314.IA2954_2026.DOC
3. The application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks from
today.
5. List the appeal for admission after the removal of office objections.
6. Interim Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 2 of 2
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 28 August, 2026
Date: 31/08/2026 17:25:35
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.