The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.basil Exports Limited
High Court
13 Aug 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.basil Exports Limited
Date of order
13 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.basil Exports Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Failing compliance, the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-compliance without any further reference to the Court.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1244 OF 2010
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.814 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai
Versus
M/s.Basil Exports Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 13 August 2010.
P.C. :
1.The appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of a conditional order dated 4 April 2009 for removal of office objections. In our view, the interests of justice would require that the prayer in the motion for restoration should be allowed subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.2,500/- to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from today.
2.Subject to payment of costs as quantified above, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and the appeal is restored to file. Time to remove office objections shall stand extended by a period of four weeks from the date on which the payment of costs is effected. Failing compliance, the appeal shall stand dismissed for non-compliance without any further reference to the Court.
3.The notice of motion is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.