Allowed¶16

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC8 May 2026IA/4422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court OOCJ; IA No. 4422 of 2025 in ITA (L) No. 38452 of 2024; PCIT 4 Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley India Co. Pvt. Ltd.; Kulkarni & Sathe JJ.; condonation of delay 176 days; Section 260A Income Tax Act; sufficient cause; substantial question of law; application allowed per prayer clause (g); admission listing; objections removal eight weeks; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 176 days in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 38452 of 2024, granted in terms of prayer clause (g); the appeal is to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections, if any, within eight weeks; interim application disposed of with no costs. ¶16

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs Morgan Stanley… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 176 days in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 38452 of 2024 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ought to be condoned on the grounds set out in the memo of the application.

¶11

Court's answer

Having perused the memo of the application, the Bench found the period of delay (176 days) not very gross and held that the reasons set out therein provide appropriate justification and constitute sufficient cause shown by the Applicant for the delay in filing the appeal.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

Key takeaways

The interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (g).ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) — Interim Application No. 4422 of 2025 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 38452 of 2024; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai (Applicant/Revenue) v. Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/assessee); Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.; decided 8th May 2026. The Bench condoned a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, holding that the period of delay was not very gross and that the reasons set out in the memo of the application provided appropriate justification and sufficient cause, so that in the interest of justice the delay was condoned and the Revenue ought not to be rendered remediless in pursuing an appeal raising a substantial question of law. The respondent, though orally opposing through counsel, filed no written opposition. Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (g); appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections within eight weeks; disposed of with no costs.

¶1

1 of 2 10.IA.4422.2025.DOC

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4422 OF 2025 IN

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.38452 OF 2024

¶5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai Applicant versus Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

¶6

Ms.Shilpa Goel for Applicant.

¶7

Adv.Renita Alex i/by India Law Alliance for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 8^th May 2026

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Digitally signed by MANISHSURESHRAO MANISHSURESHRAOTHATTE THATTE Date: 2026.05.08 13:40:11 +0530

¶11

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 176 days. On the Respondent/assessee being served, the Respondent is represented by Ms.Renita Alex, learned counsel. There is no written opposition filed to this application. Ms.Renita Alex although has orally opposed this application, she 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 she 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

¶12

M.S.Thatte

¶13

2 of 2 10.IA.4422.2025.DOC

¶14

appeal, which seeks to raise a substantial question of law as raised in the memo of the appeal.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶20

M.S.Thatte

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai v. Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

Idfc First Bank Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 3 Pune vs Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Aims Support Services India Private Limited vs Union of India

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

Suryakumar Gaurishankarn Kanojia vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai, Head Office.

Suvarna Savata Nale vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Secretary