In Mumbai City Xi v. Om Prakash Sonik, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the motion does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 289 OF 2003
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1061 OF 2003
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai City XI .. Appellant
V/s
Om Prakash Sonik .. Respondent
Mr.A.S. Rao for the Appellant.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2006
P.C.
P.C. :
P.C.
1. Mr.Rao appearing for the Appellant states that
the Appeal is not being pressed. In the circumstances,
Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Refund of court
fees as per rules.
2. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the
motion does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR J.)
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.
EaseValue