The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Bpl Limited on 20 April, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 

DAIED THIS THE 20th may 0? APRIL, 2o5§"¥f{ *gfL

pnasasw Hm
THE HOR'BLE mas.
rns HGN'BLE MRS. JUsri&fi?B-v. §aé§R#rHfi§ W
   
.V:g. ; . '~' -

xngcfifi'§Ax{Apg@ALu$&j§%1/260?

BETWEEN

1.

CENTR3L ¢$R¢1E
c:.n%. suxmx:ge.%%” A
QUas3s*aeAn,’aANsA;cRE

2Hm~coM1s$fagER pE’:ficaxE5mAx

was BE§€T?’C¢MM2SéiONER or INCOME–£AX

,GEH§R&L CIRCLE e 2(1)
‘I ._ I . . . . . ..’
‘ u , Q1Ig;h:.’§s,geAn , BANGALORE

APPELLANTS

?jéy»§ri E33 v szsaacxana)

ARE’:

.grsTs.é;Li LTD.,
.&9.’6%, cvncn srnsnr,
_BARGALORE — 550 001

RES PORDENTT

24336. CIVIL is filed. under section 5 of the

xtiniitation Act r/w section 151 of CPC J:/w section
“2601; of the Income Tax Act ‘£0:

JUSTICE mANJULA’éHfi;;u§==, a,T

2

I) To condezze the delay in filing the
applieatioz: to re:l-idatitdn recalling.

Accordingly, IA. I/_oe ‘V’m}:’::;ai;:1ing the

cxrcier restored to
file. V t V ‘ ‘ ll
Office 1:6-. 1rer,$.’£yA’–._ré«:ja.rding c:ompl.3′.anc.:e and

;.’5£i~.«fv.’_’ admission after sunmer

‘Sd/4
Judgé

va.–.v;ai::.dn, 2.9’a9;«. ..

Sdf-7!

V V ‘ lggrc/2910408 ggfigé