Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5,Mum v. M/S Seabridge Maritimeltd

High Court 23 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5,Mum v. M/S Seabridge Maritimeltd
Date of order
23 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5,Mum v. M/S Seabridge Maritimeltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 1.The above appeals which are placed for admission today, were in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed without...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.18 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Seabridge Maritime Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant.Mr. A.K. Jasanifor respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.667 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Malhar Information Services ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. D.K. Gupta for appellant.Mr A.K. Jasani for respondent. P.C. :- CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. 1.The above appeals which are placed for admission today, were in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. 2.Admittedly, the office objections have not been removed in all the above appeals within the stipulated time though the appeals are pending in this Court for sufficiently long time. It is pertinent to note that wherever extension of time for removal of office objections were sought within the period specified, this Court has granted extension of time. However, in all the above matters, neither the objections are removed within the stipulated time nor extension of time is sought for removing the office objections. As a result, the conditional order has become operational and all the above appeals stood dismissed for want of removal of office objections after the expiry of the stipulated time. In this view of the matter, no further order is necessary. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan