Case Law › High Court › In Income Tax Appeal v. Heard

In Income Tax Appeal v. Heard

High Court 30 Aug 2010 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

30 Aug 2010

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In In Income Tax Appeal v. Heard, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3Time to remove office objections is extended by four weeks from today, failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to this Court.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1012 OF 2010 ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5106 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai: Appellant.versusDodson Lindblom Hydro Power Pvt Ltd.: Respondent. : Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar APP for the Appellant.Mr.Amey Mirajkar i/by M/s.Kanga & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM :V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATE :30[th] August 2010 P.C. Heard. Perused Motion. 2For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay, if any, is, condoned and appeal is restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Law Library, (Original Side) within two weeks from today failing which the motion shall deem to have been rejected without further reference to this Court. 3Time to remove office objections is extended by four weeks from today, failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to this Court. 4Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.