The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Indian Telephone Industries on 20 April, 2009

 

'_ gay spa g'g V smsnacnana}

IR was Hxea couar or Kaxuamaxa, BAKGALORE
narzn wars was 20th Day or APRIL, 2co9_ _ _
yazsanr ' i':
mag HON'BLE MRS. avswxcn MANJULA_cfi%L;$éf  T
ARD Vmn. T T A« » .V
was noxrsng mas. ausmxcs §.§},fiAe$§g§3wA    

MISC. CVL;3.i3:*2909 V" '

.  . . . .,
:xcdfig TAk.A3p§Ai"fi§[652?2oo?

1 $32 q9mss;GNgR,oE_xNcoMa max
C.R,B3ILIKG*."-u' .
QUEags%RoAn,"{'_'
aaxaazeag V-_'

2~<§HE'fiS$IS§&§$WC9MMlSSI0NER or INCOME TAX
_é TmCIR€EEw11(4)
'V xuCLRt$6E$B$RG
], Q3axs'xQga
".aANaA;¢§g' AEPELLAETS

 *~fi/S INDIEH TELEPEONE INDUSTRIES

R0. 45/1, MEGRATH RQAB
EAKGELQRE RES?0HDEN¥

 



mac. cxvzx. is filed under section 5 -- j'tiie

Limitation Act r/w section 151 of CPC r{§é7"5--ec-'a;i'0:}__

2603; of the Income Tax Act '30: 

I} 233:) condone the d«a3.a_*g_ in £'4i'l:;.'m;V ._i:Ahé,
application to recziall _A£r;e'*_ o'ma;:7'«,Vo1;;tg_c_i j
20.12.2007

and pex.~ra:.t:_ t2:eT’.ap;~;3.;;,;:ar1ts4–.
appellants to ,ff’.i.c”:vaa

objections in ‘1-,he~._ interaat of “« §”£J’.~.!-‘a’1’$.’_”~.’:<1e;

II} To reczallv we o;:¢1éz:"L.j'¢:;;£eg1 2o'.'12.2Vo0'?

This mac. CV1. brciers, this
day , MAHJVLA cI~.=m.:.Ug_ ~a–,.. .;'g:ade_ the 7_£~'9i'3;owing:

V’

Misc. the
delay in filigig “ihé for recalling.
Ac::c:c>:r:<3.i.ngly, 'IA recalling the

3,3 to file.

m;gAm% regarding cozrwance and
the ‘ a&nissi:; after vacation.
3d/s}
udgdé

Sd/-3’

Tudgg