Nma/4064/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S. Swati Diamonds, Mumbai
High Court
07 Jan 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4064/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S. Swati Diamonds, Mumbai
Date of order
07 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/4064/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S. Swati Diamonds, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4064 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.179 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2258 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai..AppellantV/s.M/s. Swati DiamondsMumbai..Respondent
ALONGWITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4094 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.177 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2259 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai-7..AppellantV/s.M/s. S.M. Suresh & Co.Mumbai-4..Respondent
ALONGWITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4095 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.176 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2260 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai-7..AppellantV/s.M/s. S.M. Suresh & Co.Mumbai-4..Respondent
ALONGWIGHNOTICE OF MOTION NO.4096 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.178 OF 2008NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2261 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai-7..AppellantV/s.M/s. S.M. Suresh & Co.
Mumbai-4
..Respondent
Mrs. Anuradha Mane for AppellantNone for Respondent
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJDATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2009.
P.C.:1.These motions are taken out for recalling theorder dated 22.10.2008. We have perused the orderdated 22.10.2008 more specifically paragraph No. 7.It is clear that the word "dismiss" was thetypographical error. If the entire paragraph is readin proper text it ought to be "allowed". Consideringthe above, notices of motions made absolute in terms ofprayer clause (a). Appeal be restored to file.
2.On behalf of the appellant, learned Counselmakes a statement that the costs has been deposited.
3.The appellants are directed as a conditionprecedent to file proper Vakalatnama within a period oftwo weeks from today.
( F.I. REBELLO,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.