Allowed¶18

Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai v. Strides Pharma Science Limited - Ay 2013-14

Bombay HC18 Apr 2026IA/2316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), 18 April 2026, G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.: condoned 23-day delay by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Mumbai in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 22797 of 2024 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against Strides Pharma Science Limited; Interim Application No. 2316 of 2024 allowed in terms of prayer clause (g); appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections within eight weeks; no costs; respondent orally opposed without written opposition.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 23 days in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 22797 of 2024 condoned; interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause (g); appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections, if any, within eight weeks; no costs. ¶18

Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai vs Strides Pharma… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 4.IA.2316.2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2316 OF 2024 IN

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.22797 OF 2024

¶5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Mumbai Applicant

¶6

versus Strides Pharma Science Limited

¶7

Respondent

¶8

Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma for Applicant

¶9

Mr.Nishit Gandhi with Mr.Atul K.Jasani for Respondent

¶10

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 18^th April 2026

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Digitally signed by MANISHSURESHRAO MANISHSURESHRAOTHATTE THATTE Date: 2026.04.18 17:06:35 +0530

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this interim application which is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The delay which is sought to be condoned is of 23 days. On the Respondent/assessee being served, the Respondent is represented by Mr.Nishit Gandhi, learned counsel. There is no written opposition filed to this application. Mr.Gandhi although has orally opposed this application, he would not dispute the well settled position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the principles to be followed on condoning the delay, and more particularly he would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in the memo of the application, the Applicant/Revenue ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the appeal, which seeks to raise a substantial question of law as raised in the memo of the appeal.

¶15

M.S.Thatte

¶16

2 4.IA.2316.2024.DOC

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in our opinion, the reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by the Applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.

¶18

The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (g).

¶19

The appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections, if any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.

¶20

Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶21

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶22

M.S.Thatte

Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai v. Strides Pharma Science Limited - Ay 2013-14

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai v. Strides Pharma Science Limited - Ay 2013-14

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Captain Vilas Waman Katre vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs Hiranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 vs Dilip B Jiwarajka

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs I T O Ward 5 1 3

Ms Franklin Wadcorpp India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dcit Circle 1 3 2 Mumbai

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs the Official Liquidator Bombay High Court