Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.jacobs Hand G. Private Limited, Mumbai

High Court 08 Jul 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.jacobs Hand G. Private Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
08 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.jacobs Hand G. Private Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Failure on the part of the Appellant to remove office objections and/or to serve the respondent, Appeal shall, accordingly stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3802 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai ..Appellant...Respondent. VersusM/s.Gill & Company Limited Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3803 OF 2008 Director of Income Tax, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusChiron Bearing GMBH & Co., Mumbai..Respondent. Mr.Parag Vyas for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3806 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusEuro Vista Trading Co. Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3808/2008 & 3809/2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Jacobs Hand G. Private Limited, Mumbai..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.S.S. Shetty for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : Appellant is directed to remove office objections, if any, and serve unserved respondent within eight weeks from today. Hamdast allowed. In addition to hamdast service, private service by R.P.A.D. / Speed Post is permitted. Failure on the part of the Appellant to remove office objections and/or to serve the respondent, Appeal shall, accordingly stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, 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