Itxa/427/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vii, Mumbai v. M/S Shree Ram Mills Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.91 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.Shri Sayed Soharab RoustamMr. A.S. Shivsharan for appellant.None for respondent. ..Appellant...Respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.122 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal UOBJ NOC for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.130 OF 2008 M/s. Kripa Chemicals Ltd. V/s.Jt. Commissioner of Income TaxMr. M.K. Kulkarni for appellant.None for respondent. ..Appellant...Respondent. ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.135 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant.Mr. Ajay R. Singh & Paras S. Savla for respondent.ANDDirector Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) V/s.Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. Mr. Parag A. Vyas for appellant.Mr. Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co.for respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.145 OF 2008 ..Appellant...Respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.148 OF 2008 Director Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)..Appellant. V/s.Credit Agricole Indozuez ..Respondent.Mr. Parag A. Vyas for appellant. Mr.Rajiv Singh with Y.K.Singh i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co.for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.152 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s.Poonawala Investments & India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant...Respondent. Mrs. D.S. Iyer for appellant.None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.154 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Blue Star ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr. Rajesh Shah for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.167 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant. V/s.M/s. Mukesh Upadhyaya..Respondent. Mr. A.S. Shivsaran for appellant.Mr. A.S. Jasani for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.172 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.Mahindra Hinoday Industries Ltd.Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for respondent. ..Appellant...Respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.198 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant. V/s.M/s. Avval Holdings Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.Mr Suresh Kumsar for appellant.Mr. N.M. Porwal for respondent. ..Respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.200 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Bhadiyadra Gems Mr. P.S.Sahadedvan for appellant.None for respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.218 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.M/s. Lafarge India Holding Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.Mr. Prashant P. Prabhu for respondent. ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.235 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.Haryana Ship Breakers Ltd.Ms Padma Divekar for appellant.Mr.A.K. Jasani for respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1.All 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. ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.Mr. Prashant P. Prabhu for respondent. ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.235 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax V/s.Haryana Ship Breakers Ltd.Ms Padma Divekar for appellant.Mr.A.K. Jasani for respondent. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1.All 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.)