Case LawHigh Court › Tca/646/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Tca/646/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Fee Minerals India P Ltd

High Court 18 Sep 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Tca/646/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Fee Minerals India P Ltd
Date of order
18 Sep 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Tca/646/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Fee Minerals India P Ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI T.C.A. NO. 646 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax – IChennai. M/s.FFE Minerals India (P) Ltd.FL Smidth House34, Egatoor, KelambakkamOMR Road, Chennai 603 103. Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench made in ITA No.517/Mds/2008against the order dated 28.7.2011 PAN AABCM/9888 N on the file of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Company Circle II(I)Chennai against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-Iroom No.701 VII Floor New Block 121 Mathama Gandhi Road, Chennai 34dated 29.3.2007 C.No.218(4) CIT-1/263/2006-07 against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Compay Circle II(I) Chennai34 in PAN/GIR AAAC81122-D dated 16.2.2005(Assessment order) For Appellant: No Appearance JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) This Court, vide order dated 2.9.14, granted time till 16.9.14 tothe appellant for rectifying the defects pointed out by the Registrywith clear stipulation that in the absence of rectification ofdefects, the matter will stand dismissed automatically as against therespondents, however, with a rider that in case of sole respondent,the matter to be listed before the Court under the caption “ForDismissal”. 2. The matter is listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”.From the papers available on record, it is evident that the defectspointed out by the Registry have not been complied with by thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant. When the case was taken up for hearing, neither thecounsel for the appellant is present nor the appellant is present inCourt. This clearly shows that the appellant is not interested topursue the matter. Accordingly, this tax case appeal is dismissedfor default. Sd/-Assistant Registrar//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarGLNTo1. Commissioner of Income Tax – IChennai.2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras D Bench Besant Nagar, Chennai-903. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(1)701 VII floor New Block 121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, chennai 34.4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle II(I) Chennai-34. T.C.A. NO. 646 OF 2011TEJ(CO)Eu 7.11.14
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