Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S Cadbury India Ltd

High Court 22 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S Cadbury India Ltd
Date of order
22 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. M/S Cadbury India Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: In view of the abone callous attitude of the appellant, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal No. 831 of 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-5 ..Appellant vs. M/s Cadbury India Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.R.Asokan for appellant. Mr.Harinder Toor i/b Crawford Bayley and Co. for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 22nd September,2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 22nd September,2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr.Asokan had appeared in the above appeal for the appellant on 20th August, 2008 and sought time to serve the respondent. Accordingly, we adjourned the appeal to 4th September, 2008. Again on 4th September, 2008, Mr.Asokan appeared and sought time to serve the respondent. As the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that till that date the respondent even was not served. In view thereof, we adjourned the above appeal till today in order to enable the learned Counsel for the appellant to serve the respondent. -2- 2. Today, Mr.Asokan candidly admits that till date the appellant/revenue has not furnished him the copy of appeal memo. It is apparent that the appellant has taken absolutely no steps to serve the respondent till today. In view of the abone callous attitude of the appellant, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
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